9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (9) TMI 302X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... T(A) dated 23.8.2016 for the assessment years 2011-12,2009-10 and 2009-10. Appeal No.6959/M/2016 by the revenue and cross-objection thereto by the assessee is filed by the assessee against the order of CIT(A) dated 24.8.2016 for the assessment year 2009-10. Appeals bearing ITA Nos.6541 to 6543/M/17 have been filed by the revenue against the common order passed by the CIT(A) dated 30.8.2016 for the assessment years 2010-11 to 2013-13. Since issue involved in all these appeals pertains to the addition on account of bogus purchases, therefore these appeals are clubbed together, heard together and are being disposed of by this common order, for the sake of convenience. In appeals No.6591 to 6593/M/2016 and ITA Nos.6541 to 6543/Mum/2016, nei ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nally the AO disallowed and added a sum of Rs. 1,82,36,619/- relating to bogus purchases to the total income of the assessee by assessing income at Rs. 1,89,01,350/- vide order passed u/s 143(3) r.w.s 147 of the Act. 2.1 In the appellate proceedings, the ld.CIT(A) upheld the action of the AO passed u/s 148 of the Act by observing and holding as under : "8. Therefore, the appellant's contention that the AO did not have any tangible material and the case was -reopened merely on suspicion, is without any merit because the AO had tangible and specific information about appellant's transactions with hawala dealers amounting to Rs.59,90,798/- Therefore, very specific and relevant information having live link to the escapement of income was ava ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e decision in the case of CIT V/s Simith P Sheth, 356 ITR 451 (Guj) and thus restricted the addition to the tune of Rs. 29,17,859/-. Aggrieved by the order of ld.CIT(A), the assessee is in appeal before us. 3.2. The ld. DR reiterated the facts as stated before the lower authorities. 3.3. After hearing the ld. DR and on perusal of the material available before us, we find that the assessee has availed accommodation entries for bogus purchases from various hawala dealers as pointed out and published by the Sales Tax Department of GOM. We find that the assessee could not produce any documentary evidences to prove the genuineness of the purchases and even the notice sent u/s 133(6) of the Act were returned unserved but simultaneously, we find ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... al provisions of the Act and Rs. 1,24,69,409/- under the provisions of section 115JB of the Act. The return was revised subsequently. The AO, after receiving information the from the Sales Tax Department, GOM that the assessee was one of the beneficiaries of the hawala dealers who are providing accommodation entries, the AO re-opened the assessment of the assessee by issue of notice u/s 148 of the Act on 19.3.2014. The compliance of the notice issued u/s 148 was made on 28.4.2014 requesting the AO to treat the return of income filed on 31.3.2010 for the assessment year 2009-10 as in response to notice u/s 148 of the Act. During proceedings u/s 148 of the Act, the AO called upon the assessee to produce the details of these purchases as menti ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ptt GOM and the necessary documents were also filed before the AO. The AO, without making any observations on the said submissions added the entire purchase of Rs. 25,96,500 from the said supplier besides making additions qua the purchases from 5 other hawala suppliers. The ld.CIT(A) deleted the entire addition by upholding that the assessee has filed necessary documents and evidences to prove the genuineness of purchase. After examining the evidences on record, we find that the purchases from M/s Shree Sundha Steel Pvt Ltd amounting to Rs. 25,96,500/- were rightly deleted by the CIT(A) as the said party was not hawala dealer and the AO has not recorded any findings against M/s Shree Sundha Steel Pvt Ltd being hawala dealer when the assesse ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Rs. 43,64,873/-. Thereafter the AO received information from the DGIT(Inv), Mumbai that the assessee has availed certain entries of bogus purchases from the various hawala dealers as declared by the Sales Tax Department, GOM and consequently the assessment was reopened u/s 148 issued on 08.05.2014. The AO issued show cause notice to the assessee as to why these purchase should not be treated as bogus purchases. The AO after considering the explanations and submissions and various contentions raised during the assessment proceedings, disallowed the purchases to the tune of Rs. 57,90,015/- from Chetan Chemical Corporation. In the appellate proceedings, the ld.CIT(A) partly allowed the appeal by restricting the addition to Rs. 9,26,402/- bein ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
