Feedback   New User   Subscription   Demo   Login      
Tax Management India. Com TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Acts / Rules Notifications Circulars Tariff/ ITC HSN Forms Case Laws Manuals Short Notes Articles SMS News Highlights
        Home        
Extracts
Home List
← Previous Next →

Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle–2 (3) , Mumbai Versus M/s. SLS Stainless Pvt. Ltd. And M/s. Hellios Tubealloys Pvt. Ltd. (Earlier known as SLS Tubes Pvt. Ltd.)

2018 (2) TMI 346 - ITAT MUMBAI

Addition u/s 69C to 12.5% of the alleged bogus purchases - Held that:- Considering assessee’s appeal on identical issue of estimation of profit on alleged bogus purchases for the very same assessment year the Tribunal though, upheld the estimation of profit on alleged bogus purchases @ 12.5%, however, directed the Assessing Officer to reduce the gross profit already declared by the assessee from the profit to be estimated at 12.5% of the bogus purchases. The learned Departmental Representative a .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ock - Held that:- Neither before the Assessing Officer nor before the first appellate authority the assessee appeared and reconciled the difference in closing and opening stock with supporting evidence. Therefore, there were no other options before the Departmental Authorities but to treat the difference between the closing and opening stock as income of the assessee. However, considering the submissions of the learned Authorized Representative that given an opportunity the assessee will be able .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ssessee : Shri Ravikant S. Pathak ORDER PER SAKTIJIT DEY, J.M. Aforesaid appeals one by the Revenue and the other by the assessee are against two separate orders passed by the learned Commissioner (Appeals)-48, Mumbai, in respect of two different assessees for the assessment year 2011-12. ITA no.3376/Mum./2016 - Revenue s Appeal 2. The only effective ground raised by the Revenue is in relation to the decision of the learned Commissioner (Appeals) in restricting the disallowance / addition under .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

Maharashtra, found that purchases to the tune of ₹ 5,72,52,238, made from five parties were not genuine as the concerned parties have been identified as hawala operators providing accommodation bills only. After confronting the aforesaid information obtained from the Sales Tax Department to the assessee the Assessing Officer called upon the assessee to prove the genuineness of the purchases. Further, to verify the genuineness of purchases, the Assessing Officer issued notices under section .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

on before the first appellate authority. 4. The learned Commissioner (Appeals) after considering the submissions of the assessee in the context of facts and materials on record restricted the addition to 12.5% of the alleged bogus purchases which worked out to ₹ 71,56,530. 5. We have considered rival submissions and perused the material on record. At the outset, learned Authorized Representative submitted before us that while considering assessee s appeal on identical issue of estimation o .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

e deciding assessee s appeal arising out of the impugned order of the learned Commissioner (Appeals) the Tribunal has directed the Assessing Officer to adopt the profit rate on alleged bogus purchases @ 12.5% and thereafter reduce the gross profit already declared by the assessee to quantify the disallowance on account of alleged bogus purchases. In view of the aforesaid decision of the Co-ordinate Bench on identical issue, we do not find any reason to deviate from the view taken therein. Accord .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

goods. For the assessment year under dispute, assessee filed its return of income on 27th March 2012, declaring total income of ₹ 2,38,98,180. As alleged by the Assessing Officer, even after repeatedly issuing notices under section 142(1) and 143(2) the assessee neither appeared nor complied to the notices issued. Therefore, the Assessing Officer proceeded to complete the assessment ex-parte to the best of his judgment under section 144 of the Act. During the assessment proceedings on ver .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

k and added to the income of the assessee. 11. The assessee challenged the addition in an appeal preferred before the first appellate authority. However, since the assessee did not appear in the appeal proceedings and failed to reconcile the difference in closing and opening stock with supporting evidence, the learned Commissioner (Appeals) sustained the addition. 12. The learned Authorized Representative submitted that due to non-communication of statutory notices and other unavoidable circumst .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

, we find that neither before the Assessing Officer nor before the first appellate authority the assessee appeared and reconciled the difference in closing and opening stock with supporting evidence. Therefore, there were no other options before the Departmental Authorities but to treat the difference between the closing and opening stock as income of the assessee. However, considering the submissions of the learned Authorized Representative that given an opportunity the assessee will be able to .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

the basis of information obtained from Sales Tax Department, Government of Maharashtra, found that purchases worth ₹ 1,10,27,763 claimed to have been made by the assessee from Sunico Traders Pvt. Ltd. were not genuine as the said party has provided accommodation bills without actual delivery of goods. Though, the Assessing Officer called upon the assessee to prove the genuineness of purchases, however, since the assessee neither appeared before the Assessing Officer nor complied to the qu .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

orized Representative submitted, due to non- communication of statutory notices and other unavoidable circumstances, the assessee was unable to appear before the Departmental Authorities and produce evidence to prove the genuineness of the purchases. He submitted, under identical circumstances in assessee s own case for the preceding assessment year i.e., assessment year 2010-11, the Tribunal has directed the Assessing Officer to restrict the addition to the extent of 10% of the bogus purchases. .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

x Department, the Assessing Officer doubted the purchases of ₹ 1,10,27,763 from M/s. Sunico Traders Pvt. Ltd., and called upon the assessee to prove the genuineness of purchases with supporting evidence. However, the assessee neither appeared nor produced any supporting evidence before the Assessing Officer to prove the genuineness of purchases made. Even, before the first appellate authority also the assessee neither appeared nor produced any supporting evidence to prove the genuineness o .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ore the Departmental Authorities and particularly before the learned Commissioner (Appeals) the assessee had furnished supporting documentary evidences like copies of bills, delivery challans, ledger accounts, stock register cum details, quantity-wise details, copy of bank statement showing payments through cheques, confirmation from the parties from whom purchases were made. Considering the documentary evidences filed by the assessee learned Commissioner (Appeals) had estimate profit @ 12.5% of .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

 

 

 

 

 

Discussion Forum
what is new what is new
 


Share:            

|| Home || About us || Feedback || Contact us || Disclaimer || Terms of Use || Privacy Policy || TMI Database || Members ||

© Taxmanagementindia.com [A unit of MS Knowledge Processing Pvt. Ltd.] All rights reserved.

Go to Mobile Version