TMI Blog2018 (9) TMI 1888X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ring in his unaccounted income to the main stream. The existence of unaccounted income was not evidenced by any record. We are of the opinion that purchases could not have been considered as bogus. Disallowances made for the impugned assessment years stand deleted - Decided in favour of assessee. - I.T.A. Nos.309, 310 & 311/CHNY/2017 Assessment years: 2009-10, 2010-11 & 2011-2012. - - - Dated:- 12-9-2018 - Shri Abraham P. George, Accountant Member And Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Judicial Member Appellant by : Shri. L. Natarajan, C.A. Shri. Quadir Hoseyn, Advocate Respondent by : Shri. Marudhu Pandian, Addl. CIT. ORDER Abraham P. George, These are appeals filed by the assessee directed against an orders dated 26.10.2016 and 24.10.2016 of ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-4, Chennai. 2. Grounds taken by the assessee for the above years assails addition made for purchases which were considered by the ld. Assessing Officer as bogus, based on certain information received from Maharashtra VAT Department, apart from a challenge to the reopening done for the impugned assessment years. 3. Fa ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 77,48,341 5 R K enterprises 27980667157V AGVPS7835C 30,23,020 6 Global Trade Impex 27400628967V AMRPB2286L 21,03,140 7 Shree enterprise 27760618778V AARPU1851E 29,08,360 8 Hiten enterprises 27880265244V AABPP2740H ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... es were returned unserved. Ld. Assessing Officer came to a conclusion that the above purchases were bogus and completed the assessment for the impugned assessment years making additions of F69,65,348/-, F6,77,26,701/- and F2,76,56,045/- respectively. 4. Aggrieved, assessee moved in appeal before ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) for all the impugned assessment years. Argument of assessee before ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) was that these purchases were all genuine and supported by invoices, delivery challans and VAT payments. According to the assessee, payments for all these purchases were made though banking channels and the goods so purchased were subsequently sold. As per the assessee, the stock was properly accounted. Contention of the assessee before ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) was that sales having not been disbelieved or questioned, purchases alone could not have been ignored. Apart from the merits of the disallowances, assessee also assailed the reopening done for these assessment years. For assessment year 2010-2011, assessee had one other ground stating that actual purchase amount from M/s.Amee enterprises was F35,50,178/- and not ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he case of M/s. Imperial Imp Exp vs. ITO (2016) 46 CCH 0358, ld. Authorised Representative submitted that when sales were accepted, purchases could not have been rejected. Reliance was also placed on the judgment of Hon ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT vs. Nikunj Eximp Enterprises Pvt. Ltd, (2015) 372 ITR 619. Ld. Authorised Representative also submitted that ld. Assessing Officer had passed a rectification order for A.Y. 2010-2011, reducing the disallowance to F3,57,75,095/- from the original amount of F6,77,26,701/-, considering the error in the purchase from M/s.Amee enterprises. 8. Per contra, ld. Departmental Representative strongly supporting the orders of the lower authorities submitted that assessee miserably failed to provide any records for purchase of plastic granules. According to him, there were no details about the goods purchased and mode of transportation. Notices u/s.133(6) of the Act were all returned unserved. Thus, according to him, purchases were bogus. As per the ld. Departmental Representative, assessee was bringing in his unaccounted money as sales and the disallowances were therefore justified. 9. We have considered the rival c ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... : 2710986.000 (iv)Closing Stock : 376212.920 (v)Shortage/excess, if any : 0.000 Assessment year 2011-12:- (a) In the case of a trading give quantitative details of principal items of goods traded Plastic Granules Oil concern, (Qty in Kg) (i) Opening Stock : 376212.920 (ii) Purchases during the previous year : 1972992.000 (iii)Sales during the previous year : 1983006.000 (iv)Closing Stock : 366198.920 (v)Shortage/excess, if any : 0.000 The above quantity particulars were not found to be incorrect by ld. As ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ly, the Assessing Officer ought to have brought on record material which is relevant to the transactions of the assessee with the aforesaid four parties instead of making a general observation about the information received from the Sales Tax Department of the Government of Maharashtra. Quite clearly, the Assessing Officer as well as CIT(Appeals) have taken note of the fact that no sales could have been effected by the assessee without purchases. In the present case, assessee has explained that all its sales are by way of exports. The books of account maintained by the assessee show payment for effecting such purchases by account payee cheques and also the vouchers for sale and purchase of goods, etc. Notably, no independent enquiries have been conducted by the Assessing Officer. Under identical circumstances, our Co-ordinate Benches in the cases of Deepak Popatwala Gal (supra), Shri Rajeev G. Kalathil(supra)and Ramesh Kumar and Co.(supra) have held that the Assessing Officer was not justified in making additions merely on the basis of information obtained from the Sales Tax Department of the Government of Maharashtra without conducting any independent enquiries. Before the CIT(App ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
