TMI Blog2020 (9) TMI 413X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ned purchases. - I.T.A. No. 2533 to 2535/Mum/2017, I.T.A. No. 2679 to 2681/Mum/2017 - - - Dated:- 9-9-2020 - Shri Shamim Yahya (AM) And Shri Ramlala Negi (JM) For the Assessee : Shri Hiro Rai For the Department : Shri Sanjay Singh And Shri Vinod Kumar ORDER PER BENCH :- These are cross appeals by the assessee and Revenue arising out of common order of learned CIT(A) dated 30.1.2017 pertaining to A.Y. 2008-09, 2009-10 2011-12. The Issue relate to restriction on account of bogus purchases to the extent of 15% by learned CIT(A) as against 100% done by the Assessing Officer as under :- Assessment year Addition by the Assessing Officer @ 100% Sustained by learned CIT(A) 2008-09 3,92,15,251/- 58,82,288 2009-10 19,81,64,201 2,97,24,650 2011-12 3,92,31,775 58,84,766 2. At the outset, learned Counsel of the assessee Shri Hiro Rai submitted that the issue is squarely covered in favour of the assessee by the decision of ITAT in assessee ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... were running entities whose names were appearing in the list of parties, which gave bogus bills, in the website www.mahavat.gov.in. All such statements etc. were provided to the Income Tax Department also. A perusal of the material provided by the Sales Tax Department showed that there are many documents which relate to above mentioned parties from whom appellant made purchases. In view of these facts, a notice u/s 148 of the Act was issued on 09.01.2014 after duly recording reasons. Reasons were provided to the appellant. Appellant submitted objections vide letter dated 18.07.2014. AO rejected the objections filed by the appellant vide his office letter dated 13.01.2015 arid proceeded to complete the assessment proceedings. 7. During the course of assessment proceedings, notice u/s 142(1) of the Act was issued on 11.02.2015 and 19.02.2015 asking the appellant to personally produce above mentioned parties along with following documents/explanation: (i) Confirmation letter from the above parties that they have sold and delivered goods to the appellant, (H) Details of the goods which are sold to the appellant along with delivery details receipts and lorry receipts/Transportation ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... me Tax Act, etc. are being provided by appellant along with a copy of the ledger account of each of them, (vi) All the parties held a valid registration (TIN) numbers under MVAT Act when appellant entered into the transactions with them. (vii) Payment of the bills of each supplier was made by cheque as per details provided in the ledger account of the respective party, (viii) Bank accounts through which the payment to each of these parties has been made is enclosed, (ix) Similarly, the payment of all the sales, more particularly, identified against the purchase from these parties as mentioned has also been received by him by cheque. The same could also be traced in appellant's bank accounts submitted, (x) All the parties have been granted valid TIN number after detailed scrutiny of their records and deals, (xi) Appellant asked to call the said parties for confirmation by issuing summons under section 131/133A of the Income Tax Act and have a direct confirmation. 8. The Assessing Officer did not make any direct inquiry from the said alleged bogus suppliers. He rejected the submission of the assessee and made 100% disallowance of the said purchase. He did not doubte the sale ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... followed. In this regard he submitted that he is also submitting application for admission of additional evidence dated 7.9.2020 enclosing details and challans of Maharashtra VAT paid by the assessee relevant to assessment years 2008-09, 2009-10 2011-12. It has been prayed that the same could not be furnished earlier since the importance of same was not realised by learned authorised representative, who appeared on behalf of the assessee before the lower authorities. Learned Counsel of the assessee further pointed out that the assessee has furnished all the documentary evidence in support of purchase and Assessing Officer has not done any inquiry himself. In this regard learned CIT(A)-DR submitted that the additional evidence has been furnished at this stage and he objected to admission of the same. 13. Upon careful consideration, we note that there is no difference in the facts and circumstances of the case as mentioned in ITAT order for A.Y. 2010- 11. Learned CIT(A) has also relied upon his order for A.Y. 2010-11 which was adjudicated by the Tribunal as under :- 6. We notice that the Ld. CIT (A) has restricted the 100% addition made by the AO on account of bogus purcha ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... %) of the total amount of bogus purchases. 14. Thereafter in order in Miscellaneous Application for the same year the ITAT further modified its direction as under :- 5. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the material on record including the cases relied upon by the Ld. counsel. As pointed out by the Ld. counsel, the Tribunal has omitted to consider the details of MVAT paid by the assessee while passing the impugned order. Since the assessee has submitted the documentary evidence to prove payment of applicable MVAT and since the Tribunal has overlooked the said fact, we are of the considered view that the assessee should get the benefit of MVAT paid. We accordingly allow this issue and allow this benefit to the assessee. 6. So far as the submission regarding benefit of profit rate of 1.19% declared by the assessee is concerned, since we have sustained the addition @ 6.5% (MVAT @ 4% + profit @ 2.5%) by following the ratio laid down by the Hon ble Gujarat High Court in the case of Simit P Seth 38 taxmann.com 385(Guj) 2.5% , we do not find merit in the contention of the assessee. 7. Hence, in view of the aforesaid facts and the submissions made by the L ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
