TMI Blog2019 (3) TMI 62X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the submissions made by it are recorded in the order. Given the factual matrix that the Appellant had not challenge the finding of bogus purchases, the above issue could not have been raised by it before the Tribunal. Disallowance in the present facts do not give rise to any substantial question of law. - INCOME TAX APPEAL NO.1972 OF 2018 WITH NOTICE OF MOTION NO.948 OF 2018 ALONG WITH INCOME TAX APPEAL NO.1932 OF 2018 WITH NOTICE OF MOTION NO.949 OF 2018 - - - Dated:- 25-2-2019 - AKIL KURESHI M.S.SANKLECHA, JJ. Mr. Jayan Gaikwad a/w Mr. Rakesh P Saroj for the Appellant/Applicant. Mr. Suresh Kumar for the Respondent. P.C.: 1. These two Appeals are take up out of turn for admission as the Appellant Assessee had ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on 143 (1) of the Act. Thereafter the Assessing Officer on re-opening of assessment found that the Respondent made bogus purchases to the tune of ₹ 4.17 crores during the subject assessment year. This was on a finding that the Respondent had made purchases from various parties which were Hawala parties who were indulging in hawala business without actual transacting in any goods. The basis of the re-opening of the assessment was the information received from the Sale Tax Authorities. In the aforesaid circumstances, the Assessing Officer disallowed the purchases to the extent of ₹ 4.17,57,005/- and added the same as unexplained expenditure under Section 69C of the Act in the order dated 24th March, 2014 passed by the Assessing Of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ansactions. This fact of the Respondent being engaged in hawala transaction was also supported by the statement on oath made by one Shri Paras Gandhi, the director of the companies, who were declared as bogus billers and on which the Assessing Officer has placed reliance. The Tribunal recorded a finding that the Appellant Assessee had not produced any evidence to show that the purchases made by them were genuine. Thus considering the overall facts, the impugned order of the Tribunal enhanced the disallowance from 3.67% to 12.5% of the bogus purchases and directed the Assessing Officer to calculate the income of the Respondent-Assessee accordingly. 8. Mr. Jayant Gaikwad, the learned counsel appearing for the Appellant herein submits tha ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the Assessing Officer in the order of sthe Tribunal. The submission of Mr. Jayant Gaikwad on behalf of the Appellant-Assessee that the same was urged before the Appellate Tribunal, but was not considered, cannot be accepted. This is particularly so if the Tribunal had failed to make a note of the submission of a party in its order, then the appropriate remedy for the party was to move the Tribunal for rectification of the order ensuring it that the submissions made by it are recorded in the order. However, given the factual matrix that the Appellant had not challenge the finding of bogus purchases, the above issue could not have been raised by it before the Tribunal. 10. In the above circumstances, we are of the view that extent of disa ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
