9911796707
TMI Blog2022 (9) TMI 1027X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... and civil contracts in the shape of E-Check post. It is also trading in allied materials. Return of income of Rs. 84,16,530/- was filed and the case was selected for scrutiny. During the assessment proceedings, an information was received from the DIT(lnvestigation)-l, Delhi vide letter F.No. DIT [lnv]- l/MVAT/Del/2012-13/70 dated 26.02.2013 forwarding information received from the VAT Department, Mumbai. The said information was received in this office containing details of such companies who had procured bogus invoices from certain parties. On perusal of information revealed that the assessee company was one of the company who had procured the bills from the following proprietary concerns namely, 1. M/s Asian Steel ( TIN-27860346038v/c(Prop-Dushyant Singh) for Rs.35,09,387/- 2. M/s Suraj Tube Corporation ( TIN-275503044371v/c(Prop.Shri Suresh Singh) for Rs.6,08,044/- 3. M/s Chanchal Tube Corporation ( TIN-27460355491 v/c)(Prop - Shri Shivanand Singh) for Rs.12,71,478/- 2.1 The background is that a search was conducted by VAT Department of Mumbai at the addresses of above concern and it was found that the purchase bills issued by these concerns to various parties includ ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ration the averments and evidence of the assessee which have been summarized on behalf of the assessee as follows :- "6. The Ld. CIT(A) confirmed the conclusions of the AO for various reasons are referred herein below. The said conclusions as well as Assessee's rebuttal thereof, based on facts and material on record, are as under :- No. CIT(A)'s Finding Assessee's Averment & Evidence 1 Assessee claimed sales to Government of Jharkhand, but no work order was placed on record. Further, as of 31.03.2010, the Jharkhand Government owed the Assessee Rs.8.55 crores, of which a sum of Rs. 3.66 crores was over 6 months due. CIT(A) herself admits at page 15 of the appellate order, that sales of Rs. 12,33,81,325/- have been duly accounted for by the Assessee against the Government of Jharkhand contract, against which only purchases of Rs.6,50,38,643/- have been claimed. Income from the said contract having been duly offered and taxed, the underlying transaction cannot be disbelieved. Lags and delays in payments are a regular feature of government contracts. Given that invoices raised by the assessee upon Government of Jharkhand along with evidence of supply of EWB's, (PB 125- ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... eduction against material supplied by the Assessee. Mettler Toledo's quotation as well as the Assessee's purchase orders (PB 96-124) contain rates based on Mettler Toledo's specifications and require the Assessee to supply further material at its own cost. Such an arrangement is perfectly normal. 7 Mumbai VAT Department found that vendors were operating from small rooms in slum areas, and the spece therein was inadequate to store the quantity of steel stated to be supplied. It is commonplace for small trading and supply businesses to operate from small premises, and To stack inventory in further and far-flung areas to save on rental costs. Given the product's industrial nature, this also helps in transporting the goods without having to enter city limits in many cases. Further, details of parties stated to be given by them to Investigation Wing are as per their balance sheet filed during A.Y. 1995-96 (Page 8 of CIT(A)'s order), while the Assessee has transacted with them in AY 2010-11. 6. On the other hand, Ld. DR submitted that there is no error in the findings of ld. Revenue Authorities below. He referred to various observations of Ld. CIT(A) and submitted that the assessee ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 9. In regard to the remand report, the ld. CIT(A) observed in his : "4.2 In the remand proceedings, the AO has stated that requisition u/s 133(6) was made to M/s. Mettler Toledo India (P) Ltd. vide letter dated 15.12.2015 for verifying the contention of the appellant that extra steel beams and TMT bars had to be supplied by the appellant and to inform whether the impugned purchases were actually received at the factory site and utilized in the fabrication of the electronic weigh bridges. Parallely, commission had been issued u/s 131(l)(d) of the IT Act on 12.04.2016 to make the necessary queries with regard to the bank payments. A reminder was sent on 21.07.2016 to M/s Mettler Toledo India (P) Ltd. and to the Investigation Wing in absence of any response from them. The AO also emailed the M/s Mettler Toledo India (P) Ltd. on 16.08.2016 at the email id available in the public domain requesting for the information. However, there has been no response from that party. Without prejudice to the above, the AO has stated that the contention of the appellant regarding orders received from the Transport Department Govt, of Jharkhand could not be verified as the assessee had not furnished ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tances by Ld. CIT(A) indicate as if a presumption of truth was attached to all proceedings of VAT department, Mumbai and the onus was on assessee to rebut the same. Rather once Ld. CIT(A) had called for specific report from Ld AO then unless there was specific material collected to rebut the submissions of assessee then merely on basis of inference from the circumstances, the purchase could not have been held to be bogus, by the Ld CIT(A). 11. In fact assesse's own accounts stand admitted by revenue which reflect that the work order with Govt of Jharkhand was source of revenue as shown in the balance sheet of assessee, where the Transport Department of Jhankhand is shown as a debtor of Rs. 85,51,993/-. The Revenue has accepted the income of assessee and relevant is scheduled at 13 available at page no. 63 of the paper book, being part of the copy of ITR of assessee company, wherein income from sales (E-cheque post), for which purchases were made and sub contracted to M/s. Mettler Toledo India (P) Ltd, has been shown to be Rs. 12,33,81,325/-. Thus, it was unfair on the part of Ld. Tax authorities below to consider the purchases of stocks used for earning this revenue by alleging it ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
