TMI Blog2018 (10) TMI 1292X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... issue of notice to the party has 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 party. 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 bogus purchase bills. Mere preparation of documents for purchases cannot controvert overwhelming evidence that the provider of these bills is bogus and non-existent. The Sales Tax Department in its enquiry has 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 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ken as lead year. The Return of Income in this case was filed on 27.09.2009 declaring total income of ₹ 8,15,510/-. Subsequently, the A.O. received information from Sales Tax Department and also from the office of DGIT (Inv), Mumbai that the appellant is a beneficiary of accommodation Bills of purchases from certain bogus Hawala Dealers. As per the information, the concerned Hawala Dealers had not sold any goods, but it had given accommodation entries of sales to the appellant. As per the assessment order, the details of the bogus purchases from the supplier as claimed by the assessee is as under: Sr. No TIN No. Name of the entity PAN Amount (Rs.) ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ugh the parties which have already been placed in the list of suspicious dealers by the Sales Tax Department. The A.O. refused to take the argument like cheque payment, bills, invoices, ledgers etc as a conclusive proof for genuineness of payment. Relying on certain case laws, the Assessing Officer finally concluded that the purchases from the above mentioned hawala dealers are not genuine and as per the ratio of judgement in the case of Vijay Protein Ltd. 1996 58 ITD 428 (Ahmedabad), 25% of such purchases was disallowed. 6. Against the above order assessee appealed before the ld. CIT(A). The ld. CIT(A) restricted the addition of 12.5% of the bogus purchase. 7. Against the above order of the ld. CIT(A), the assessee is in appeal bef ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... se parties at the addresses provided by the assessee. All these notices have returned unserved. Assessee has not been able to produce any of the parties. Neither the assessee has been able to produce any confirmation from these parties. In such circumstances, there is no doubt that these parties are non-existent. We find it further strange that assessee wants the Revenue to produce assessee s own vendors, whom the assessee could not produce. The purchase bills from these non-existent/bogus parties cannot be taken as cogent evidence of purchases. In light of the overwhelming evidence, the Revenue authorities cannot put upon blinkers and accept these purchases as genuine. This proposition is duly supported by Hon ble Apex Court decision in th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 16.1.2017. 13. I 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 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
