9911796707
TMI Blog2020 (7) TMI 130X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ils of closing stock." 3. Facts of the case as noted by the AO is that the assessee in this case trades in jewellery items. Information was received from the Director of Income Tax (Investigation) informing the AO that some accommodation entry operators in Mumbai were giving accommodation entries in lieu of commission through a maze of bogus purchase and sales in the name of companies managed by these operators to gems and jewellery merchants across the country. In this regard, M/s. Dhandhia Gems ( the assessee), being a trader in jewellery items, was also a beneficiary, who had received entries by way of non-genuine purchase bills to the tune of Rs. 1,05,150/- from AVI Exports during the Financial Year 2009-10 relevant to the Assessment Year 2010-11. Accordingly the case was selected for re-assessment u/s. 147 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ( hereinafter referred to the 'Act') by way of issuance of notice u/s. 148 of the Act. 4. After reopening the assessment, the AO observed that the assessee when asked to explain about the purchase made from M/s. AVI Exports, it replied that it had properly disclosed purchase of diamonds worth of Rs. 1,05,150/- from M/s. AVI Exports and made the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... IT(A) the modus operandi employed by Shri Rajendra Jain, Shri Surendra Jain and Shri Sanjoy Chowdhury was that they had created many fictitious firms and entities through which bogus bills were issued against commission to the desiring parties like the assessee and when this fact came to the notice of the department during the search conducted in their premises, the statements of said persons were recorded u/s. 131 of the Act, wherein they have confessed that they had been operating a network of various concerns through which such business of providing accommodation entries were run. Therefore, the ld. CIT(A) was of the opinion that since the entry provider, Shri Rajendra Jain has confessed and has explained the details of modus operandi employed by them in providing accommodation entry in lieu of commission, the ld. CIT(A) was pleased to confirm the order of the AO. Aggrieved, the assessee is before this Tribunal. 5. Having heard both the parties and after perusal of the records, it is noted that similar matter has been adjudicated by this Tribunal. It has been brought to my notice by the ld.AR of the assessee that this Tribunal has deleted similar addition in the case of M/s. M. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ShriRajendra Jain had subsequently retracted his statement by way of an affidavit deposing before the Notary Public on 9.1.2014 (enclosed in pages 96 to 100 of paper book). He had also explained the circumstances under which the original statements had been recorded and effectively stated that the same was recorded under coercion and the statement recorded therein were as per the desire and will of the DDIT (lnv) who recorded the statement. ShriRajendraJain had also initially filed an affidavit on 21.10.2013 (enclosed in pages 91 to 95 of paper book) retracting the statement recorded by DDIT (lnv) . He also filed a letter to DCIT, Central Circle -4, Surat on 31.10.2014 explaining the entire facts of the case and the circumstances warranting him to file two affidavits [i.e on 21.10.2013 and 9.1.2014 reiterating the same) [enclosed in pages 88 to 90 of paper book). Hence the version of the revenue that the assessee had received cash back in lieu of cheques issued to suppliers of diamonds, stands negated pursuant to the retraction of statement of ShriRajendraJain which is the only source of evidence available with the revenue and which has been heavily relied upon by the revenue. A s ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... phone and goods are sent through trusted and regular couriers. As a normal business practice, goods are regularly received in the above stated manner. However, at the moment it is not possible to exactly recollect how the above consignments were received because of long time gap' 7.2 We find that the assessee had furnished the summary of diamonds movement for the period 1.4.2005 to 31.03.2007 indicating the quantity and value in opening balance, purchases, sales and closing balance (enclosed in page 53 of paper book). We find that the assessee had also filed the purchase bills of M/s. Vitrag Jewels (enclosed in pages 68 to 72 of the paper book) together with the ledger account of M/s. Vitrag Jewels as appearing in the books of the assessee firm for the period 1.4.2006 to 31.03.2007 and for the period 1.04.2007 to 31.03.2008 wherein the payments were made to M/s. Vitrag Jewels by account payee cheques. Admittedly the payments were made to M/s. Vitrag Jewels through account payee cheques on 22.02.2008 (Rs. 10,00,000/-) and on 27.03.2008 (Rs. 5,57,470/-). Hence the primary allegation of the Ld. AO that the assessee had received the csh back in lieu of account payeecheques issue ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ppeal of the assessee" Heard Mr. Das, learned advocate appearing for the appellant revenue and Mr. J.P, Khaitan, learned senior advocate appearing for the respondent-assessee. Before us the revenue could not demonstrate either the money was not paid or the money was paid and routed back to the assessee. In the circumstances interference with the order of the Tribunal is not warranted. No. question arise for adjudication. The application and the appeal are dismissed 7.4. We also find that similar issue had been addressed by this tribunal in respect of purchases made from M/s Vitrag jewels in connection with the statement of ShriRajendrajain in the case of ManojBeganivs ACIT in ITA No. 932/Kol/2017 for Asst Year 2008-09 ; ITA Nos. 933 to 935/Kol/2017 for Asst Years 2010-11 to 2012-13 and ITA No. 936/Kolj2017 for Asst Year 2014-15 vide consolidated order dated 15.12.201'0 wherein this tribunal had elaborately discussed the modus operandi of all the transactions from various angles and decided the issue in favour of the assessee. The findings given thereunder are not reiterated herein for the sake of brevity. 7.5 In view of the aforesaid findings in the facts and circumstan ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
