TMI Blog2018 (5) TMI 349X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... RI RAM LAL NEGI, JM For The Appellant : Shri V. Justin For The Respondent : Shri R. C. Jain ORDER Per Bench: These are appeals by the Revenue against the respective orders of the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) for the concerned assessment years. 2. The common grounds raised read as under: (i) The Ld. CIT (A) has erred on facts and in law in giving relief in respect of the amount of addition on account of bogus purchase after noting that appellant failed to negate the information based on enquiry conducted by DGIT(Inv.) Mumbai, as per the list on the Maharashtra Sales Tax Website, were hawala dealers and providing accommodation bills. (ii) The Ld. CIT (A) has erred on facts and in law, in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 2 Prayan Trading Company 2008-09 24,48,056 3 G S Enterprises 2008-09 6,29,555 4 Vitarag Trading Co. 2008-09 20,95,002 Total 2008-09 70,25,711 During proceedings u/s. 131 of the Act, the assessee was asked to produce the evidences in support of said purchases. The assessee submitted the bills without proper supporting evidences such as delivery challan, lorry receipt were produced. The assessee could not furnish one to one movement of the alleged bogus purchase ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... to the practice of bogus sales/purchases and that the assessee has made bogus purchases from them. Thus, it is imperative on the part of the assessee to produce the above parties for confrontation in order to rebut that the purchases are genuine. But, the assessee did not produce both the aforesaid parties. Merely submitting the invoices per se do not prove the transaction to be genuine unless persons from whom purchases are made are confronted. Emphasis is supplied to the fact that aforesaid two parties have admitted before Sales Tax Authority .in indulging bogus sales/purchases. The assessee, as such, has failed to discharge its onus by not substantiating the genuineness of the transaction. In the absence of any verifiable evidence and no ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r transportation expenses of goods have not been provided by the assessee, by claiming that goods were directly sent to the seller from purchaser. In this factual scenario it is amply that assessee has obtained bogus purchase bills. Mere preparation of documents for purchases cannot controvert overwhelming evidence that the provider of these bills are bogus and non-existent and there is no cogent evidence of transportation expenses of goods. The Sales Tax Department in its enquiry have found the parties to be providing bogus accommodation entries. The assessing officer also issued notices to these parties at the addresses provided by the assessee. All these notices have returned unserved. Assessee has not been able to produce any of the par ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... dated 16.1.2017. 11. 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 Hig ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... case should be restricted to 12.5% of the bogus purchase. The ld. Counsel of the assessee s reliance upon the Hon ble Delhi High Court decision in the case of CIT vs. JMD Computers and Communication (P.) Ltd. [2009] 20 DTR 370 (Del) is not applicable on the facts of the present case. In the said decision the Hon ble High Court did not find any infirmity in the concurrent order of the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) and the ITAT. Moreover, the said case was related to investigation carried out by the Inspector. Furthermore, since we have adjudicated this case by reference to the Hon ble Apex Court and Hon ble High Court decisions applicable on the facts of this case, the other Tribunal s decisions referred by the ld. Commissioner ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
