9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (12) TMI 797X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ng Officer received information from the DGIT(Inv.) who in turn received information from the Sales Tax Department about some accommodation entry providers. The information in possession of the Assessing Officer was that the assessee has received accommodation entries for purchases to the tune of Rs. 3,74,86,467/- from 9 parties as under: Sr. No. Name of the party Amount 1 Harshil Ferromet Pvt. Ltd. 87,03,345/- 2 Kotsons Impex Pvt. Ltd. 2,44,352/- 3 Hans Enterprises 72,26,481/- 4 Mahaveer Metal Corporation 5,93,403/- 5 Khushal Mercantile Pvt. Ltd. 11,00,299/- 6 Aman Impex 36,84,764/- 7 S. K. Engineering Co. 50,16,073/- 8 Chair Impex Trading Pt. Ltd. 54,04,209/- 9 Kank Guru Tubes & Metals Pvt. Ltd. 57,86,541/- Total 3,74,86,467/- 3. On the basis of this information, the Assessing Officer issued notice u/s. 148 and reopened the case. 4. During the course of assessment proceedings, the Assessing Officer asked the assessee to furnish the supporting documents for purchases made from the above non genuine parties and also the supporting documents for corresponding sales affected. The assessee could only furnish the addresses of the above mentio ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... and notice u/s.148 is issued goes to show that the AO has applied his mind and satisfied himself about the reopening of the case. The reasons recorded are not vague and scanty but precise and concrete. In this case, the information has come from the Investigation wing of the same department with supporting statements and modus operandi. There is no reason or occasion to disbelieve this information. Besides, what the Act envisages is that the AO should only have a reason to believe to reopen a case. He need not establish beyond doubt that there is escapement before issuing the notice. This can be done at the time of assessment but not at the time of issue of notice. Reliance is placed on the following judgements : 1) Rohilkhand Educational Charitable Trust vs. CCIT and Others 365 ITR 233(All.) wherein the Hon'ble High Court held AO should have relevant and credible material with him to form requisite reason to believe that income of assessee has escaped assessment. Material available on record has rational connection and relevant bearing on such formation of belief for issuing valid notices for re-assessment- sufficiency or correctness of material was not to be considered at ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... , the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) concluded by directing the Assessing Officer to restrict the addition to 6.5% of the alleged bogus purchases. 7. Against this order, the assessee is in appeal before us. 8. We have heard both the counsel and perused the records. We find that credible and cogent information was received in this case by the assessing officer that certain accommodation entry provider/bogus suppliers were being used by certain parties to obtained bogus bills. The assessee was found to have taken accommodation entry/bogus purchase bills during the concerned assessment year from different parties. Based upon this information assessment was reopened. The credibility of information relating to reopening remains un-assailed. In such factual scenario, the assessing officer has made the necessary enquiry. The issue of notice to all the parties have returned unserved. Assessee has not been able to provide any confirmation from any of the party. Assessee has also not been able to produce any of the parties. Necessary evidence relating to transportation of the goods was also not on record. In this factual scenario, it is amply clear that the assessee has obtained ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... bogus, 100% disallowance was required. The special leave petition against this order along with others has been dismissed by the Hon'ble Apex Court vide order dated 16.1.2017. 12. We further note that Hon'ble Rajasthan high court has similarly taken note of decisions of the apex court on the issue of bogus purchases in the case of CIT Jaipur vs Shruti Gems in ITA No. 658 of 2009. The Hon'ble High Court has referred to the decision of CIT Jaipur vs. Aditya Gems, D. B. in ITA No. 234 of 2008 dated 02.11.2016, wherein the Hon'ble Court had inter alia held as under: "Considering the law declared by the Supreme Court in the case of Vijay Proteins Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax, Special Leave to Appeal (C) No.8956/2015 decided on 06.04.2015 whereby the Supreme Court has dismissed the SLP confirmed the order dated 09.12.2014 passed by the Gujarat High Court and other decisions of the High Court of Gujarat in the case of Sanjay Oilcake Industries Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax (2009) 316 ITR 274 (Guj) and N.K. Industries Ltd. Vs. Dy. C.I.T., Tax Appeal No.240/2003 decided on 20.06.2016, the parties are bound by the principle of law pronounced in the aforesaid three judgments. 13. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
