9911796707
TMI Blog2021 (1) TMI 875X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ner of Income Tax-11(3)(1), Mumbai (hereinafter referred to as ld. AO). 2. The only effective issue to be decided in this appeal is as to whether the ld. CIT(A) was justified in sustaining the disallowance made @12.5% on value of alleged bogus purchases in the facts and circumstances of the instant case. 2.1. None appeared on behalf of the assessee. In fact the notices sent to the assessee on 06/10/2020 and 27/10/2020 had returned back to this Tribunal and we also find that from the date of first hearing of this appeal i.e. on 17/02/2020 onwards the assessee had not recorded its presence either in person or through an authorized representative u/s 288 of the Act. Hence, we proceed to dispose off this appeal on merits on hearing the ld. DR ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Mundra wherein he had also admitted that the aforesaid four suppliers were engaged in providing accommodation bills to various parties. Accordingly, the ld. AO sought to verify the veracity of the purchases made by the assessee from the aforesaid suppliers. The assessee vide letter dated 15/12/2015 furnished the financial statements of the alleged suppliers, copy of confirmations from the parties, copy of purchase invoices, copy of delivery challans, copy of bank statement highlighting the payment made to the alleged parties, statement showing items purchased from the alleged parties and on subsequent sales made by the assessee thereon. The assessee pleaded that assessee had even submitted the delivery challans evidencing the proof of deli ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ng the course of appellate proceedings had submitted necessary evidences regarding transportation and consumption of the materials purchased but again observed that assessee could not produce the parties before him also. By placing reliance on various decisions including the various decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court as detailed in para 6.3,6.4,6.5,6.6,6.8 and decisions of the Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court and Tribunal decisions up to para 6.29 of the order of the ld. CIT(A), the ld. CIT(A) ultimately concluded that the parties from whom the purchases were made were found to be bogus and that was the precise reason for non-production of those parties by the assessee either before the ld. AO or before him. The ld. CIT(A) also observe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... are not getting into the said aspect as to whether that alone could be a reason for justification of disallowance of bogus purchases made by the revenue. But in the instant case, notices issued u/s.133(6) of the Act could also not be served on the alleged bogus suppliers. This categorically goes to prove that those suppliers are not in existence at all. The primary onus is always on the assessee to justify its claim of deduction. Admittedly, it is the assessee which has claimed deduction for purchases in the sum of Rs. 10,55,96,000/- in its return of income. The primary onus to prove the veracity of such purchase loss is only on the assessee. But we find that since the revenue had not doubted the corresponding consumption / sales made out ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
