TMI Blog2019 (3) TMI 1079X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... i Tanmay Phadke-AR For the Revenue : Shri Chaitnya Anjaria-DR ORDER The assessee is aggrieved by the impugned order dated 27/02/2018 of the Ld. First Appellate Authority, Mumbai, on the grounds raised in the grounds of appeal. 2. During hearing, the ld. counsel for the assessee, Shri Tanmay Phadke, did not press grounds 3, 4 and 5 with respect to disallowance of motor expenses of ₹ 17,775/-, depreciation of ₹ 19,509/- and disallowance of office and conveyance expenses of ₹ 26,280/-, therefore, these grounds are dismissed as not pressed. 3. The only ground argued/agitated by the ld. counsel is with respect to disallowance of ₹ 15,75,231/- on account of bogus purchases. The Ld. counsel for the assessee, explained that the assessee is a builder/developer and without using the material there cannot be any development, thus, only profit element can be added against the addition made by the Ld. Assessing Officer. It was also pleaded that the assessee has already declared gross profit @ 12.98% and net profit @ 12.20%. On the other hand, Shri Chaitanya Anjaria, contended that addition made by the Ld. Assessing Officer and sustained by the Ld. Com ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e persons who had issued bills for such goods. Though the purchases are shown to have been made by making payment thereof by account payee cheques, the cheques have been deposited in bank accounts ostensibly in the name of the apparent sellers, thereafter the entire amounts have been withdrawn by bearer cheques and there is no trace or identity of the person withdrawing the amount from the bank accounts. In the light of the aforesaid nature of evidence it is not possible to record a different conclusion, different from the one recorded by the Commissioner (Appeals) and the Tribunal concurrently holding that the apparent sellers were not genuine, or were acting as conduit between the assessee-firm and the actual sellers of the raw materials. Both the Commissioner (Appeals) and the Tribunal have, therefore, come to the conclusion that in such circumstances, the likelihood of the purchase price being inflated cannot be ruled out and there is no material to dislodge such finding. The issue is not whether the purchase price reflected in the books of account matches the purchase price stated to have been paid to other persons. The issue is whether the purchase price paid by the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ;s decision in the case of Vijay Proteins Ltd. v. Asst. CIT [1996] 58 ITD 428 (Ahd). 6. We are of the opinion that the Tribunal committed no error. Whether the purchases themselves were bogus or whether the parties from whom such purchases were allegedly made were bogus is essentially a question of fact. The Tribunal having examined the evidence on record came to the conclusion that the assessee did purchase the cloth and sell the finished goods. In that view of the matter, as natural corollary, not the entire amount covered under such purchase, but the profit element embedded therein would be subject to tax. This was the view of this court in the case of Sanjay Oilcake Industries v. CIT [2009] 316 ITR 274 (Guj). Such decision is also followed by this court in a judgment dated August 16, 2011, in Tax Appeal No. 679 of 2010 in the case of CIT v. Kishor Amrutlal Patel. In the result, tax appeal is dismissed. 3.3. Likewise, the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in CIT vs Vijay M. Mistry Construction Ltd. (2013) 355 ITR 498 (Guj.) held/observed as under:- 6. As is apparent from the facts noted hereinabove, the Commissioner (Appeals) after appreciating the evidence on re ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ount ₹ 7,88,590 on account of payment made to MMTC. 11. The assessee preferred an appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals), who upon appreciation of the evidence on record found that the Assessing Officer had not rejected the genuineness of the purchases made from MMTC while making the disallowance. His observations were based on inflation of rates which were being charged from the assessee. According to the Commissioner (Appeals), though MMTC in some respect could be attributed to be associated with the assessee-company, still it could not be expected that MMTC was carrying out its business without any motive or profit. According to the Commissioner (Appeals), it was proved by the assessee that the rates charged by MMTC were comparable with the prevailing market rates, no such addition can stand. The Commissioner (Appeals) took note of the fact that it was not the case of the Assessing Officer that the purchases had been directly effected from third parties and not directly from MMTC ; the difference could not be the net profit in the hands of MMTC ; and that while conducting the entire exercise MMTC would have to incur certain expenditure in transportation, in engaging ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... other machineries were in the nature of acquisition of capital asset. According to the Commissioner (Appeals), the disallowance could have been made on depreciation only if at all the Assessing Officer conclusively proved that the purchases of crane and other parts are bogus. Upon appreciation of the material on record the Commissioner (Appeals) found that the Assessing Officer has simply brushed aside all the evidence on account of technical infirmities and that the evidence such as octroi receipt ; hypothecation of the crane to the bank; existence of the crane even till date with the assessee conclusively proved that the crane was purchased and it was in use even as on date with the assessee. The Commissioner (Appeals) accordingly found that there was no scope for any disallowance and accordingly deleted the disallowance made on account of purchase of crane and allowed the depreciation as claimed by the assessee. 15. The Tribunal, in the impugned order, has noted that the cost of crane was never claimed by the assessee in the return of income. Before the Tribunal, the assessee produced the evidence that the crane in question was registered with the RTO and the same was ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d report and even at that stage the genuineness of the statement has not been established by allowing cross examination of the person whose statement was relied upon by the revenue. In these circumstances, the decision of the Tribunal being based on the fact, no substantial question of law can be said to arise from the order of the Tribunal. The appeal is dismissed with no order as to costs. 3.5. The Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in CIT vs M.K. Brothers (163 ITR 249) held/observed as under:- Being aggrieved by the aforesaid order, the assessee went in second appeal before the Tribunal. It was urged on behalf of the assessee that the transactions in question were normal business transactions and the assessee had made payments by cheques. The parties did not come forward and if they did not come, the assessee should not suffer. However, on behalf of the Revenue, it was urged that detailed inquiries were made and thereafter the conclusion was reached. The Tribunal found that there was no evidence anywhere that these concerns gave bogus vouchers to the assessee. No doubt, there were certain doubtful features, but the evidence was not adequate to conclude that the purcha ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... terial purchased was actually delivered at the site was furnished before the AO. It was also argued that some of the material purchased from the said parties were lying part of closing stock as on 31.03.2009 as per the statement submitted on record. After considering the assessment order and the submissions made by the assessee, FAA held that the transactions were supported by proper documentary evidences, that the payments made to the parties by the assessee were in confirmation with bank certificate hat the suppliers was shown as default under the Maharashtra VAT Act could not be sufficient evidences to hold that the purchases were nongenuine, that the AO had not brought any independent and reliable evidences against the assessee to prove the non-genuineness of the purchases, that there was no evidence regarding cash received back from the suppliers. Finally, he deleted the addition made by the AO . 2.3.Before us, Departmental Representative argued that both the suppliers were not produced before the AO by the assessee, that one of them was declared hawala dealer by VAT department, that because of cheque payment made to the supplier transaction cannot be taken as genuine. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... eted the additions on account of bogus purchases not only on the basis of stock statement, i.e., reconciliation statement but also in view of the other facts. The Tribunal records that the books of account of the respondentassessee have not been rejected. Similarly, the sales have not been doubted and it is an admitted position that substantial amount of sales have been made to the Government Department, i.e., Defence Research and Development Laboratory, Hyderabad. Further, there were confirmation letters filed by the suppliers, copies of invoices for purchases as well as copies of bank statement all of which would indicate that the purchases were in fact made. In our view, merely because the suppliers have not appeared before the Assessing Officer or the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), one cannot conclude that the purchases were not made by the respondent-assessee. The Assessing Officer as well as the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) have disallowed the deduction of ₹ 1.33 crores on account of purchases merely on the basis of suspicion because the sellers and the canvassing agents have not been produced before them. We find that the order of the Tribunal is well a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
