9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (8) TMI 992X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ther on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in granting relief of Rs. 1,90,95,000/- to the assessee by ignoring the fact that the assessee has not proved the nature and source of the cash credits within the meaning of section 68 of the Income-tax Act, 1961?". b) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in granting relief of Rs. 1,90,95,000/- to the assessee by ignoring the fact stated under Rule 46A that the appellant shall not be entitled to produce before the Ld. CIT(A), any evidence, whether oral or documentary, other than the evidence produced by him during the course of proceedings before the AO, except in circumstances mentioned in Rule 46A(i) (a) to (d)?". 2.a) "Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in restricting the disallowance on bogus purchases to 12.5% i.e. Rs. 40,74,835/-thereby granting a relief of Rs. 92,54,561/- by ignoring the fact that neither the party nor the confirmation letter was produced during the course of assessment proceedings which would prove that the purchases alleged to have been made were genuine?" ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ourse of aforesaid assessment proceedings, the AO observed that the assessee has received various receipts which stood credited to bank account of the assessee by way of unsecured loans to the tune of Rs. 2,88,60,868/- . The assessee submitted some details before the AO with respect thereto and finally the assessee was show caused by the AO as to why following unsecured loans totalling to Rs. 1,90,95,000/- be not added as income of the assessee as cash credit within the provisions of Section 68 of the Act, as detailed under:- Sr. No. Name of the parties as per submission Date of transaction Amount credited (Rs.) Remark 1. Ambition Plaza Pvt. Ltd. 21.10.2010 10,00,000 Bank Entry Details: RTGS: Ambition Plaza Pvt. Ltd. UTR No. HDFCH102494425365 Sender Bank: HDFC Bank Ltd. Sender Branch: Buraqbazar Kolkata/HDFC0000219 2. Atul Ratilal Shah 19.04.2010 1,00,000 RTGS ATUL RATILAL SHAH BARBH10109828280 3. Big Scale Shipping Pvt. Ltd. 25.10.2010 40,00,000 RTGS: 3rd floor, KOHIAR HOUSE 4(tm) MARINE S UTR NO. PUNBH 10298064724 Sender Bank: PUNJAB NATIONAL BANK SENDER BRANCH; BOMBAY ILACO HOUSE FORT SPJM,/PUNB0006100 4. Roof & Proof 20.10.2010 9,0 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... asked the investors to give confirmation of accounts and other details which was not give as in their books of account said money was shown as share application money. Thus to this contradiction they did not provide us any further details also. This money which was taken from investors .was further paid by us as additional security deposits for works to Shayona Corporation which they further paid to Muncipal Corporation. The said deposit was refunded to us by M/s. Shayona Corp. On receipt of same from corporation as and when refunded. The same was paid back to us and we refunded the same to investors immediately as per the commitments made to them. We have received payment from M/s. Shayona Corporation dated 12/07/2012 vide transfer in our PNB Thane Account which was paid back by us immediately on the same day which can be confirmed with our bank statements (attached at Page C-l-Pg. C2). 3.4 The AO observed that vide letter dated 20.03.2014, the assessee has furnished name and addresses , PAN no. of the above eight parties. 3.5 The AO observed that confirmations were submitted by assessee in respect of following three parties , detailed as hereunder:- (i) Roof and Proo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 9.02.2014 , 02.03.2014 and on 20.03.2014 wherein all details were submitted but reply dated 20.03.2014 was not considered by the AO while framing assessment order dated 27.03.2014. 4.2 The assessee submitted before learned CIT(A) that submissions before the AO were delayed due to following reasons:- "1) Loan from Sandhya Ratilal Shah was shown in the books of Appellant in the name of Atul Ratilal Shah. Likewise loan from Jayesh B. Shah was shown in the books of Appellant in the name of Veenaben Shah. Thus the confirmations were delayed for reconciliation. 2) Now, amount received from Ambition Plaza Private Limited and Seva Bhawan Private Limited was received as share application money for future expansion. Though, subsequently it was found that the Appellant was not permitted to issue shares due to restriction of Authorized Share Capital. Thus the Appellant had undergone a dispute with the said parties, precisely - Ambition Plaza Private Limited and Sewa Bhawan Private Limited due to delay in repayment. Other parties, precisely - Shubh Labh Vinimay Private Limited, Snow Pack Tieup Private Limited and Big Scale Shipping Private Limited are the same group of companies. Thus, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 6 for the Appeal No. CIT(A)-18/IT-108/ITO-8(3)(4)/ 14-15 regarding submission of documents. The documents being submitted are as follows: 1. Copy of Ledger Confirmation of 8 parties as mention in Notice. 2. Copy of Covering Letters of Submissions made to the Assessing Officer. 3. Copy of Ledger Confirmations along with bills of Purchase of 12 parties mentioned in the notice." 4.4 The assessee also claimed before learned CIT(A) that the AO has not granted reasonable opportunity and time to produce evidences and passed an assessment order making aforesaid additions to the income of the assessee. The assessee submitted additional evidences before learned CIT(A) by invoking Rule 46A of the Income-tax Rules, 1962 and prayers were made for admission of these additional evidences, the details of which are as under:- "1. Copy of Ledger Confirmation of 8 parties. 2. Copy of ITR Acknowledgement of the Parties for the A. Y. 2011-12. 3. Bank Statement of the Parties showing the details of transactions entered during the year under Appeal. 4. Copy of Balance Sheet of the Parties with detailed loan schedule which shows name of Company for said amount." 4.5 The Ld. CIT ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s reasonable opportunity and time to produce evidence in loan confirmations and got delayed due to dispute between the loan parties and company. The reason was known to Assessing Officer though order has been passed disallowing the same. The confirmation we were unable to submit was due to dispute about the either for holding stake in company or for the rate of interest. The above additional information goes to root of the cause of addition and therefore it is a humble request to your honour to admit additional evidence under Rule 46A of the Income Tax i.e. the confirmation which we could not submit to Assessing Officer before passing the order or which were not considered by the Assessing Officer at the time of Assessment u/s 143(2). I have carefully considered the rival submissions and find that the Assessing Officer has rejected the additional evidence without any verification. On perusal of the additional evidence I find that the same is sufficient to discharge the burden cast upon the appellant by way of confirmation, PAN no. etc. The Assessing Officer has not brought any further material on record to disprove the correctness of additional evidence filed by the appellant. I ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ties which stood credited to its bank account which is a subject matter of dispute between rival parties as to satisfaction of mandate of Section 68 of the 1961 Act. The AO while framing assessment u/s 143(3) concluded that the assessee had failed to discharge its onus u/s 68 of the 1961 Act with respect to these cash credits leading to additions being made in the hands of the assessee towards income of the assessee to the tune of Rs. 1,90,95,000/- u/s 68 of the 1961 Act as unexplained cash credits, while learned CIT(A) after considering additional evidences as well remand report submitted by the AO during the course of first appellate proceedings , concluded that the assessee has duly discharged its onus as is cast u/s 68 of the 1961 Act . The details of share application money/ unsecured loans to the tune of Rs. 1,90,95,000/- received by the assessee from the aforesaid eight parties are as under:- Sr. No. Name of the parties as per submission Date of transaction Amount credited (Rs.) Remark 1. Ambition Plaza Pvt. Ltd. 21.10.2010 10,00,000 Bank Entry Details: RTGS: Ambition Plaza Pvt. Ltd. UTR No. HDFCH102494425365 Sender Bank: HDFC Bank Ltd. Sender Branch: Buraqbaza ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... led in preceding para‟s of this order which were admitted by learned CIT(A). The remand report was submitted by the AO during the course of appellate proceedings conducted by learned CIT(A) on these additional evidences filed by assessee before learned CIT(A) which was also considered by learned CIT(A) while granting relief to the assessee. Be that as it may be , it is now admitted position that the assessee has claimed to have submitted all the evidences in its possession in order to make an effort to discharge its burden u/s 68 of the 1961 Act. These evidences either filed before the AO during assessment proceedings or during appellate proceedings conducted by learned CIT(A) are now placed in paper book filed by assessee with tribunal. While submitting additional evidences before learned CIT(A), the assessee has explained reasons for non submission of these evidences before the AO which was accepted by learned CIT(A). In the interest of substantial justice , we are inclined to endorse the decision of learned CIT(A) in admitting all these additional evidences with a view to dispense justice to both the parties as we are inclined to prefer the cause of justice than technica ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e has setup a claim that two of the parties namely Ambition Plaza Private Ltd and Seva Bhawan Private Limited were participating in share capital by way of subscription of share application money but later the said money was converted into interest free unsecured loans as the assessee has claimed that it had insufficient authorised share capital to issue share capital. It is also claimed that it led to dispute between the assessee and investing parties as these Investing parties are reflecting these amounts advanced to assessee as share application money while assessee is unilaterally reflecting the same amount as interest-free unsecured loans received from the aforesaid parties. The assessee has not submitted any shareholder agreements or terms and conditions for issuance of its shares to these parties . The assessee has also not submitted copies of Resolution passed by its Board of Directors and/or Shareholders or of the investing company. The assessee has also not placed on record any report of due diligence conducted by investing companies or valuation report of its shares. Thus, the assessee has not discharged its burden u/s 68 of the 1961 Act with respect to the share applica ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... satisfied. If one or more of them is absent, then the AO can make the additions u/s 68 of the Act as an income. There are companies which are widely held companies in which public are substantially interested which comes out with an initial public offers wherein shares are listed on stock exchanges and widely traded , wherein members of public make subscriptions in pursuance to the Prospectus issued by the company . Issue of shares in these cases to general public in India as well abroad are approved, regulated and monitored by various authorities who are engaged in regulating and managing securities market such as Securities and Exchange Board of India(SEBI) , Stock Exchanges, Government of India etc. . These members of public who make subscription are widely scattered all over the country or even outside India as any person entitle to apply as per the conditions prescribed in the prospectus can place an application subscribing to the shares of the company by depositing duly filled in application along with application money with the designated authorized recipients of the company stipulated in the prospectus such as bankers, brokers, under-writers, merchant bankers, company offic ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ew, merely submission of the name and address of the creditor, income tax returns, Balance Sheet/statement of affairs of the creditor and bank statement of the creditor is not sufficient as the AO is to be satisfied as to their identity and creditworthiness as well as to the genuineness of the transaction entered into. 6.11 It is undisputed that the aforesaid amount of Rs. 1,90,95,000/- stood credited in the books of accounts of the assessee and now the onus is on the assessee to prove identity and creditworthiness of the creditors to advance these amounts to the assessee and genuineness of these transactions, be it share application money or unsecured loans. The assessee has filed paper book in which it has claimed to have filed all necessary evidences such as confirmations etc. to claim that its onus u/s 68 stood discharged. The Ld. CIT(A) deleted the additions by accepting these evidences including additional evidences filed by assessee before learned CIT(A). The assessee setup a story that some of these receipts are from various investors who subscribed share application money to subscribe towards share capital of the assessee but later on said amount was treated as interest- ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... oans were finally paid off/squared by the assessee. The learned CIT(A) merely accepted confirmation filed by the assessee and did not made any enquiry/verification himself to come to conclusion whether all the ingredients of Section 68 were satisfied cumulatively . Needless to say that powers of ld. CIT(A) are co-terminus with powers of the AO. In our considered view, the assessee has not fully discharged its onus u/s 68 of the 1961 Act completely and cumulatively as to all the three ingredients and in our considered view , this matter need to be restored to the file of the AO for fresh adjudication wherein one more opportunity is granted to the assessee to adduce evidences to substantiate satisfaction of all the three ingredients of Section 68 of the 1961 Act. The assessee is directed to file necessary evidences before the AO in set aside proceedings to discharge its onus/burden as is cast u/s 68 of the 1961 Act. The AO is directed to give proper and adequate opportunity of being heard to the assessee in denovo assessment proceedings. The AO shall admit all relevant evidences/explanation filed by the assessee in its defence in set aside proceedings, which shall then be adjudicated ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 3,50,000/- through banking channel to said party(page 69/pb). Since, as per this confirmation, no amount is received during the year under consideration and in our considered view when no amount is received and found credited during the year under consideration, Section 68 has no applicability as it can be applied when any sum is found credited in the books of accounts of the assessee. If Revenue wants, then it can invoke provisions of Section 68 of the 1961 Act for the year when the said sum was received by assessee and was found credited in its books of accounts of the assessee, if the law so otherwise permit. Reference is drawn to provisions of Section 68 of the 1961 Act as was applicable for ay: 2011-12, which reads as under: "Cash credits. 68. Where any sum is found credited in the books of an assessee maintained for any previous year, and the assessee offers no explanation about the nature and source thereof or the explanation offered by him is not, in the opinion of the [Assessing] Officer, satisfactory, the sum so credited may be charged to income-tax as the income of the assessee of that previous year." Thus for limited verification of this aspect as to whether an ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... veal that while payment of Rs. 10 lacs was made by it on 21.10.2010 to assessee , which is preceded with deposit of equivalent amount of Rs. 10 lacs on the same day in its bank account . The balance maintained with the bank account with HDFC bank from where payment was made by said M/s Ambition Plaza Private Limited to assessee was a meager sum of Rs. 26,000/-. The assessee has not submitted any details of shareholder agreements or terms and conditions agreed for allotment/subscription of its shares by said M/s Ambition Plaza Private Limited . The assessee has also not submitted Resolutions passed by its Board of Directors or Shareholders nor Resolutions passed by investing company is filed. There are no due diligence/valuation report for valuing assessee company or its shares at the behest of investing company are brought on record. The said amount was claimed to be shown as share application money by said M/s Ambition Plaza Private Limited in its audited Balance Sheet while the assessee is now claiming the said amount as interest-free unsecured loan payable to M/s Ambition Plaza Private Limited . This company Ambition Plaza Private Limited has address at 30 Shivtolla Street, Burr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ived‟ under the head "Loans and Advances‟ in its Balance Sheet as at 31.03.2011. The copy of ITR, Confirmations and bank statements of the lending company are not filed. With Respect to Snowpack Tie-up Private Limited, merely Balance Sheet and Schedules as at 31.03.2011 are filed along with certified ledger account( No P& L A/c, Bank Statement, copy of ITR filed) (pb/page 65-67). The said company has reflected an amount of Rs. 40,00,000/- advanced to assessee as "Advances for value to be received‟ under the head "Loans and Advances‟ in its Balance Sheet as at 31.03.2011). The copy of ITR, Confirmations and bank statements of the lending company are not filed. With Respect to M/s Bigscale Shipping Private Limited , merely Balance Sheet and Schedules as at 31.03.2011 are filed along with certified ledger account( No P& L A/c, Bank Statement, copy of ITR filed) (pb/page 70-72). The said company has reflected an amount of Rs. 40,00,000/- advanced to assessee under the head "Loans and Advances‟ in its Balance Sheet as at 31.03.2011. The said amount of Rs. 40,00,000/ is claimed to be paid back on 10.07.2012 , vide certified ledger account copy. The copy of I ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ion money into loans is merely an afterthought. The loans received by the assessee from these companies are stated by assessee to be unsecured and also free of interest which defies all commercial logics and commercial expediencies as to why these unrelated parties shall advanced these amounts as unsecured loans to assessee and that too without any interest. The assessee has filed bank statement in the case of Ambition Plaza Private Limited and Seva Bhawan Private Limited which clearly shows that the money of equivalent amount comes into bank account of these two companies on the same day which are then transferred to the bank account of the assessee on the very same day and the average balance maintained by both these investing company was otherwise meagre/minimal. The assessee has not filed copies of ITR‟s in the case of Shubh Labh Advertising Private Ltd, Snowpack Tie-up Pvt. Ltd., and Bigscale Shipping Pvt. Ltd. nor their bank statements were filed. Thus taking into account all the evidences filed by the assessee along with explanations offered , we are of the considered view that assessee has not discharge its primary onus as is mandated u/s 68 of the 1961 Act with respe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f these purchases. The assessee in response thereof with respect to query raised by the AO , submitted as under:- " We have made the purchase sand metal cement , etc. from Mrs. Vikramsinah J, Solanki having address: 6/1, Durga Villa, Gokhale Road, Vile Parie (E), Mumbai - 57 and contact No.: 8980285985 as per the requirement of material at site for the construction. The order for the said material is normally given on phone to the agents and they supply to us thru the various dealers and normally the dealers raised the bills with materials send by them: M/S. Vatsa Enterprises M/S.Excel Industries M/S.Deep Enterprises M/S.Sambhav Traders M/S.R.K. Traders M/S.Amee Enterprises M/S.Gaddhar Trading Co. M/S.Ashar Impex M/S.Vijami Impex M/S.Linion Tradelink M/S.Banjara Enterprises M/S. A. K. Enterprises (As per In connection with the purchases from the above parties, we are furnishing the point wise details asked by you for your perusal: 1. Details of seller such as name and address, PAN details of material/goods purchased. The details of seller were given in letter dated 30/01/2013 and again on 13/11/2013 with address and VAT TIN No. of the above parties. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ller. Hope the above details and explanations will able your honour for justifying our claim of genuine purchase made by us, and further we are enclosing the details of the sales corresponding the purchases alongwith the copies of labour bills. Further to prove our genuine purchase we are enclosing the third party confirmations i.e. of our sales parties and also of the parties from which they received these contracts i.e. the Mumbai Municipal Corporation for the completion of the said work and also the corresponding bills raised by them to the Corporation." 7.3. The AO observed from the assessee‟s aforesaid reply, as detailed hereunder :- "(i) The assessee has not furnished confirmations of account of the entire above mentioned seller parties. Further, in some cases, it is seen that in some cases, confirmations of account are not countersigned by respective seller party. Hence, furnishing of confirmation of account of some of the parties, which are even not cross signed, cannot be relied upon. (ii) It is seen that none of the bills of purchases furnished by the assessee company have been signed in lieu of receipt of goods by any person except the bills of Deep E ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... or excavated in Mumbai. It is always import from outside Mumbai. While coming by road to Mumbai, many toll naka as well as at the entry point of Mumbai & Thane city, octroi naka is always there. The receipt of Octroi as well as Toll can be a valid proof of transportation of goods. If the assessee is not having such proof, it is the responsibility of assessee to arrange such receipt from the seller party which was not done so. (x) As regards to assessee's contention the it has completed the construction work at Thane as well as at Andheri sites, it is to be clarified here that the assessee has shown total purchase of Rs. 18,30,56,344/- and the assessee has procured bogus bills only to the amount of Rs. 3,25,98,680/-. The assessee has not classified/ bifurcated to establish that out of the said amount of purchases of material of Rs. 3,25,98,680/- also, it has completed the construction/ job work, as it has also claimed other purchases of Rs. 15,04,57,664/-in addition to the above amount of Rs. 3,25,98,680/-, which may be genuine in nature. Therefore the assessee's contention that it has completed the construction work from purchases of Rs. 3,25,98,680 of said material is a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... es Tax authorities. The assessee also submitted before Ld. CIT(A) details of purchases and sales for work contract execution by the assessee and it was submitted that it can be verified that all the aforesaid materials alleged to be bogus purchases by the AO which were purchased by the assessee came directly at the site of Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai and Thane and the material were utilised in executing contract and some of the material were appearing as stock in hand as at year end. Thus it was submitted that material represented by aforesaid alleged bogus purchases were duly accounted for by the assessee. It was submitted that AO has not verified the same for which the assessee is not at fault. It was submitted that the ledger confirmation from the creditor were duly submitted before the AO and there is a reconciliation wherein sales were backed by purchases. The assessee also relied upon certain case laws , detailed hereunder:- (i) CIT v. President Industries (2002) 258 ITR 654 (Guj.) (HC) (655) (ii) CIT v. Balachand Ajit Kumar (2003) 263 ITR 610 (MP) (HC) (612-613) (iii) Sanjeev Woolen Mills v. CIT (2005) 279 ITR 434 (SC) It was also submitted that these ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ll (1973) 87 ITR 349 (7) Chuharmal vs. CIT (1998) 172 ITR 250/ 38 Taxman 190 (8) Dhakeswari Cotton Mills Ltd. Vs. CIT (1954) 26 ITR 775 (9) Nikunj Eximp In ITA no. 5604 of 2010 (Bombay High Court); (10) Balaji Textiles 49 ITD 177 (Bom) (11) Rajeev G. Kalathil in ITA no. 6727/Mum/2012 and CO no. 06/Mum/2014 (12) Nikunj Eximp (2014) 48 Taxmann.com 20 (Bom),. (13) Killick Nixon Ltd., vs DCIT (2012) 20 Taxmann.com 703 (Bom) (14) B.V vs. Union of India (2012) 204 Taxmann.com 408/ 17 Taxamann.com 202 (15) Union of India vs. Azadi Bachao Andolan (2004) 10 SCC 1 (16) Mathuram Agarwal v. State of Madhya Pradesh (1999) 8 SCC 667 (17) Sri Ganesh Rice Mills Vs. CIT (2007) 294 ITR 316 (All.) (18) Khandelwal Trading Co. vs. ACIT (1996) 55 TTJ 261 (JP) (19) Deoria Oxygen Company vs. CIT (2007) 160 Taxman 427 (ALL.) (20) Dhakeswari Cotton Mills Ltd. vs. CIT (1954) 26 ITR 775 (21) Seth Gurmukh Singh vs. CIT (1994) 12 ITR 393 (22) Samurai Software P. Ltd., vs. CIT (2008) 299 ITR 324 (Raj.) (23) CIT vs. La Medica (2001) 250 ITR 575 (24) Indian Woolen Carpet Factory vs. ITAT (2002) 125 Taxman 763 (Raj.) (25) Sanjay Oilcake Industries vs. CIT (20 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e additions as were confirmed by Ld. CIT(A) be upheld . It was submitted that assessee has not filed any appeal against decision of the Ld. CIT(A) which stood accepted by the assessee and reliance was placed on decision of Ld. CIT(A). Thus, prayers were made by learned counsel for the assessee to confirm the appellate order passed by Ld. CIT(A). 10. We have heard rival contentions and perused the material on record. We have observed that the assessee is engaged in the business of execution of contracts for transportation of waste, waste management, works contracts and sub-contracts. The assessee is working for executing work contracts with Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai and Municipal Corporation of Thane as sub-contractor. The assessee has made total purchases to the tune of Rs. 18,30,56,344/- during the year under consideration. Since , the assessee is executing work contracts with aforesaid Municipalities albeit as sub-contractor, these materials so purchased are intended to be consumed for executing of work contracts awarded by these Municipalities and onus is on the assessee to prove that these materials were duly utilised/consumed in executing of work orders through ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ies albeit located at different places have used same lorries/trucks for alleged supplies of goods to the assessee. The delivery of goods as well consumption of goods cannot be proved. The destination of goods has not been mentioned in the bills as the materials are meant for government contracts and are to be unloaded at work site to be utilised/consumed for executing work orders. The AO observed that work completion register maintained by municipality did not endorse the delivery of the goods as alleged to be made from these twelve parties. The assessee did not produced evidences such as octroi receipts to substantiate movement of goods. The other discrepancies are also noticed by the AO which are mentioned in para 4.3 of the AO order at page 8-10 of assessment order. It is an admitted position that notices issued u/s 133(6) returned unserved by postal authorities. It is also admitted position that the assessee could not produce these parties before the AO as well learned CIT(A). The AO disallowed 100% of these alleged bogus purchases while learned CIT(A) upheld additions to profits embedded in these purchases which was estimated @12.5% of alleged bogus purchases. The Revenue has ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... to be complete like "MH 02K 6019‟ but is stated to be merely "6019‟. This trend is noticed in all the invoices submitted by assessee in paper book of all the suppliers namely Vatsa Enterprises, Excel Enterprises , Deep Enterprises, Amee Enterprises and so on. It is highly improbable that all these parties will not write fully lorry details but will write only number of Lorry. The second confirmation of account is filed of Excel Enterprises which also reveal same trend that purchases started from 15.11.2010 and ended on 31.03.2011 during the year under consideration , aggregating to Rs. 28,16,575/-. It is observed that the assessee again did not made any payments to the said party during entire financial year. Similar trend and pattern is observed with respect to purchases made from Amee Enterprises which started from 15.11.2010 and ended on 31.03.2011 , aggregating to Rs. 29,94,221/- while no payments are made by the assessee for the entire year and balance outstanding as on 31.03.2011 is Rs. 29,94,221/-. The balance outstanding to be payable by assessee to said party as at 31.03.2011 is Rs. 29,94,221/- . The purchases were made in short period from 15.11.2010 to 31.03. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
