TMI Blog2020 (2) TMI 504X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ced, while deciding identical issue in case of the Karta of the HUF, who is not only in same line of business but had made similar purchases from common entities, the Tribunal [2017 (12) TMI 1667 - ITAT MUMBAI] relating to the Assessment Years 2009 10 and 2010 11 has deleted the additions. - Decided against revenue - ITA No.7495 And 7496/Mum./2018, ITA No.08 And 09/Mum./2019 - - - Dated:- 5-2-2020 - Shri Saktijit Dey, Judicial Member And Shri Rajesh Kumar, Accountant Member For the Assessee : Ms. Radha Halbe For the Revenue : Shri R. Bhoopathi ORDER PER SAKTIJIT DEY. J.M. These are two sets of cross appeals arising out of two separate orders, both dated 29th July 2018, passed by the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) 38, Mumbai, pertaining to the assessment year 2010 11 and 2011 12. 2. The common issue involved in these appeals is in relation to the additions made/deleted on account of non genuine purchases. 3. Brief facts, more or less common in these appeals are, the assessee is a Hindu Undivided Family (HUF) and is engaged in the business of trading in TMT Bars, Steel, etc. For the assessment year 2010 11, the assessee filed its re ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t element embedded in such purchases has to be added. Accordingly, he estimated such profit element @ 12.5% on the bogus purchase in both the assessment years and made the following additions: A.Y. 2010 11 ₹ 6,49,007 A.Y. 2011 12 ₹ 6,80,464 Contesting the aforesaid additions, assessee preferred appeals before the first appellate authority. 4. After considering the submissions of the assessee in the context of facts and material on record, learned Commissioner (Appeals) agreed with the Assessing Officer insofar as the issue of genuineness of purchases are concerned. He held that since the assessee could not furnish sufficient documentary evidence to prove the genuineness of purchases claimed to have been made from the concerned parties, such purchases cannot be accepted to be genuine. However, he did not agree with the estimation of rate of profit @ 12.5% as adopted by the Assessing Officer. He observed, the assessee has already declared gross profit ratio @ 3.3% on all its purchases. Further, the assessee has declared net profit @ 1.59%, whereas, VAT rate on such good ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... which are reflected in the bank statement. Thus, she submitted, when all documentary evidences were furnished before the Assessing Officer to prove the purchases, there is no justification in treating the purchases as non genuine and making addition by estimating the profit element at certain percentage. The learned Authorised Representative submitted, merely because the notices issued under section 133(6) of the Act returned back un served, would not lead to the conclusion that the purchases are non genuine. Finally, the learned Authorised Representative submitted, while deciding identical issue in case of Prabhat Gupta (Individual), the Karta of the HUF, who is also in the similar line of business, in the assessment years 2009 10, 2010 11 and 2011 12, the Tribunal having found that the purchases are supported by valid documentary evidences, has fully deleted the addition made by treating such purchases as non genuine. In this context, he drew our attention to the aforesaid orders of the Tribunal. Thus, she submitted, facts being identical, following the aforesaid decision of the Tribunal the entire addition should be deleted. 7. The learned Departmental Representative submitte ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... lled for which has been acknowledged by the Assessing Officer. However, the Assessing Officer has treated such purchases as non genuine primarily for two reasons. Firstly, the assessee could not furnish any documentary evidence to demonstrate actual delivery of goods in its premises. Secondly, notices issued under section 133(6) of the Act return back un served. From the material placed before us in the form of paper book, it is noticed that in the course of assessment proceedings, the assessee has furnished purchase invoices, corresponding sale invoices, delivery challan, transport receipt relating to the sales effected, account confirmation from selling dealers, etc. It is a fact on record that the assessee could not furnish any delivery challan or transportation documents to indicate actual delivery of goods at its premises. To explain this, learned Authorised Representative has submitted that as per assessee s modus operandi, on receipt of a purchase order from the end customer, it purchases the goods from the selling dealers and the truck load is directly dispatched to the end customer without making delivery at assessee s premises. The aforesaid contention of learned Autho ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
