AI OCR 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2017 (9) TMI 520
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....as u/s.69C was Rs. 69,13,003/-. 4. By the impugned order CIT(A) restricted the addition to the extent of 12.5% after applying various judicial pronouncements. The CIT(A) has dealt with the issue at para 6 to 8.36 of his order after giving his reasoning, the CIT(A) restricted the addition in respect of profit earned on such bogus purchase to the extent of 12.5% amounting to Rs. 8,37,780/-. 5. In the A.Y. 2010-11 similar addition was made by the AO to the extent of Rs. 1,13,69,129/- which was restricted by CIT(A) to the extent of 20%. 6. In the A.Y. 2011-12, addition made by AO u/s.69C amounts to Rs. 1,29,22,428/- which was restricted by the CIT(A) to the extent of 12.5% amounting to Rs. 11,09,892/-. 7. In the A.Y.2012-13, AO made addition u/s.69C amounting to Rs. 1,15,625/-. 8. By the impugned order, CIT(A) restricted addition to the extent of 12.5% of such purchases. 9. Against the above orders of CIT(A), both assessee and revenue are in further appeal before us. 10. We found that detailed finding has been recorded by CIT(A) in all the years under consideration. In the A.Y.2009-10, the findings recorded by CIT(A) in respect of bogus purchases reads as under:- 6. I have give....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e under section 148 is ab-initio void. 7.3 Records revealed that the case was re-opened by issue of notice u/s 148 of the IT Act which was duly served upon appellant. In response to the notice u/s.148 of the IT Act, the appellant had submitted that the return filed earlier be treated as filed in response to notice u/s 148 of the IT Act. The AO had also given the reasons recorded for re-opening of the impugned assessment to the appellant. 7.4 The appellant submitted that assessment had been reopened solely on the basis of the information received from Sales Tax Department. The Sales tax Department provided such information on the basis of the general statement of 3rd party named Sh. Devarshi M Ganatra, Proprietor of M/s Dev Enterprises which has been recorded at back of the appellant and copies of such statement had not been provided to the appellant for confrontation. The appellant was not allowed an opportunity of cross examination, thus re-opening of the assessment solely on the basis of statement of 3rd party cannot be sustained. Further, the statement of 3rd party is too general in nature and does not specify the appellant's name nor appellant's involvement in any....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... had escaped assessment, it can be said to have reason to believe that an income had escaped assessment. The expression cannot be read to mean that the Assessing Officer should have finally ascertained the fact by legal evidence or conclusion. The function of the Assessing Officer is to administer the statute with solicitude for the public exchequer with an inbuilt idea of fairness to taxpayers. As observed by the Supreme Court in Central Provinces Manganese Ore Co. Ltd. v. ITO [1991] 191 662, for initiation of action under section 147(a) of the IT Act (as the provision stood at the relevant time) fulfillment of the two requisite conditions in that regard is essential. At that stage, the final outcome of the proceeding is not relevant. In other words, at the initiation stage, what is required is "reason-to believe", but not the established fact of escapement of income. At the stage of issue of notice, the only question is whether there was relevant material on which a reasonable person could have formed a requisite belief. Whether the materials would conclusively prove the escapement is not the concern at that stage. This is so because the formation of belief by the Assessing Offic....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....lity of the assessees to pay the tax. It may be urged that the issue and service of a notice under section 22(1) or (2) may affect the liability under the penal clauses which provide for failure to act as required by the notice. The jurisdiction to assess and the liability to pay the tax, however, are not conditional on the validity of the notice. Suppose a person, even before a notice is published in the papers under section 22(1), or before he receives a notice under section 22(2) of the Income-tax Act, gets a form of return from the Income-tax Officer and submits his return, it will be futile to contend that the Income-tax Officer is not entitled to assess the party or that the party is not liable to pay any tax because a notice had not been issued to him. The liability to pay the tax is founded on sections 3 and 4 of the Income-tax Act, which are the charging sections. Section 22, etc., are the machinery sections to determine the amount of tax." [Emphasis supplied] 7.11 The above observations were approvingly cited by the Supreme Court in CIT v. Jai Prakash Singh [1996] 219 ITR 737 / 85 Taxman 407. In addition the Supreme Court also noticed its observations made earlier in E....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e-assessment. In any case, in Datamatics Ltd. v. Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax 110 ITD 24 (Mum), Hon'ble Mumbai Tribunal after considering GKN Driveshafts (supra) has held as under : "Considering the issue in detail, in the case of ITO v. Smt. Gurinder Kaur [2006] 102 ITD 189 (Delhi), Tribunal held that non-communication of the reasons is not fatal in the light of the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case ofS. Narayanappa v. CIT[1967] 63 ITR 219, rendered by a Bench of three Judges, which was not brought to the notice of their Lordships while considering the matter in the case of GKN Driveshafts (India) Ltd, (supra). Since the Tribunal has considered the decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of GKN Driveshafts (India) Ltd. (supra) and also the case of S. Narayanappa (supra), we are of the view that the plea of the assessee that non-communication of the reasons in spite of request of the assessee made after filing the return, cannot be treated as fatal. Hence, the appeal of the assessee on this additional ground is dismissed." (Emphasis supplied) 7.16 In view of the above discussion and the fact that there was an transactions with ce....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....n be a misleading one. Therefore, what is required is a full and true disclosure of all material facts necessary for making assessment for that year. As noted in detail earlier, I find from the reasons recorded by the Ld. A.O. that these transactions were not disclosed by the appellant and therefore, prima facie he had valid grounds to reopen the case. 7.20 It has been held in a number of cases that once the A.O. records the mandatory reasons before initiating reassessment proceedings on the basis of evidence brought to his knowledge, the courts cannot step into his shoes as regards the sufficiency of the reasons recorded. The belief must be honest and of reasonable person based on reasonable grounds. The A.O. may act on direct or circumstantial evidence; but his belief must not be based on mere suspicion, gossip or rumour. I find from the facts of the case that the reason is based on specific facts. The Hon'ble Apex court has held that the court can always examine this aspect (i.e. formation of belief) though the declaration or sufficiency of the reasons for the belief cannot be investigated by the court. [(Sheo IMath Singh 82 ITR 147)(SC) ; Bhagwan Industrial P.Ltd. 31STC ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....r cases in which income has been made the subject of excessive relief under the Act or where excessive loss or depreciation allowance of any other allowance under the Act has been computed, would constitute cases of income escaping assessee. There is considerable authority for the proposition that the jurisdiction of the AO to initiate proceedings would depend upon whether he has reasons to believe that any income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment. A long string of decisions rendered by the Supreme Court have emphasized that the belief of the AO must be in good faith and must not be a mere pretence. The apex Court has further held that there must be a nexus between the material before the AO and the belief which he forms regarding the escapement of the assessee's income. A writ Court, therefore, is entitled to examine whether the AO's belief was in good faith and whether such reasons had a nexus with the action proposed to be taken. " 7.24 The present case is not even one of change of opinion. Question of change of opinion arises when the A.O. forms an opinion and decides not to make an addition and holds that the appellant was correct in his stand. It will be app....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....observed (P.644): It is the duty of the assessee to bring to the notice of the ITO particular items in the books of account or portions of documents which ore relevant. Even if it be assumed that from the books produced, the !JO may not on that account be precluded from exercising the power to assess income which had escaped assessment" 7.27 To the same effect is the decision of the Supreme Court in Malegaon Electricity Co. (P) Ltd. vs. CIT (1970) 78 ITR 466 (SC) where the Court observed (page 471): 7t is true that if the ITO had made some investigation, particularly if he had looked into the previous assessment records, he would have been able to find out what the written down value of the assets sold was and consequently he would have been able to find out the price in excess of their written down value realized by the assessee. It con be said that the ITO if he had been diligent could have got all the necessary information from his records. But that is not the same thing as saying that the assessee had placed before the ITO truly and fully all material facts necessary for the purpose of assessment. The law casts a duty on the assessee to 'disclose fully and truly all m....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ussion on the issue in the Assessment order and no details were called for by the A.O. or filed by the assessee on the issue, no finding either positive or negative can be said to have been arrived at during the course of original assessment proceedings. Hence, there is no question of change of opinion as held in the following judgments. 1. Kalyanji Mavji & Co. vs. CIT 102 ITR 287 (SC) 2. Esskay Engineering P. Ltd. vs. CIT 247 ITR 818 3. ITO vs. Purushottam Das Bangur & Anr. 224 ITR 362 (SC). 7.31 The second question that could arise for consideration is whether the appellant had made full and true disclosure of material facts. I have already reproduced above the contentions of the appellant in this regard and the objections raised. There is nothing on record and not even the stand of the appellant that details as recorded in the "reason to believe" were furnished with the return of income. 7.32 In Writ Petn. No.9036 of 2007, Honda Siel Power Products Ltd. vs Dy CIT & Anr. Decision dt. 14th Feb. 2011 (reported at (2011) 52 DTR (Del) 353 -Ed.) it was held: "10...... The term 'failure' on the part of the assessee is not restricted only to the IT return and t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....otice issued notice u/s 148 of the IT Act based on assessment of subsequent assessment year is valid even if the appeal is pending for such assessment. Further, in the case of Piaggio Vehicles P. Ltd. vs. DOT 290 ITR 377 (Bom), the Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court held that in a case of reopening after 4 years subsequent scrutiny assessments, contradiction was discovered between Tax Audit report and Return of income, it was a case of omission and/or failure on the part of the assessee to disclose fully and truly all facts for computation of its income. It is also held by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the following cases that facts which could have been found by the ITO by further probing are covered under failure to disclose fully and truly all material facts. [Indo - Aden Salt Mfg. and Trading Co. P. Ltd. vs.CIT 159 ITR 624 (SC) R.B.Bansilal Abirchand Firm vs. CIT 70 ITR 74 (SC)] 7.35 Thus, I have no hesitation in holding that the Ld. A.O. had correctly reopened the assessment. Having held so, it could not also be said that reassessment framed on the basis of the above said reopening was violative of any statutory provision. So far as the merits of the additions is conce....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....13,003/-, includes VAT of Rs. 2,66,760/-, which is a Govt. tax and should not be included in the amount of purchases. 8.2 I have considered the submission and it is found in order. Therefore, the bogus purchases which are to be considered remains at Rs. 66,46,243/-, instead of the purchases of Rs. 69,13,003/-, as taken by the appellant in the assessment order. 8.3 The appellant submitted that the addition made in assessment treated the purchase of Rs. 66,46,243/-, from 14 parties as bogus purchase and added in the income of the appellant. The appellant, during course of re-assessment, furnished several documentary evidences such as bank statements, purchase bills, ledger account, confirmations and A/c payee cheque payments, stock tally made to such party to justify the genuineness of the recorded purchase and payments thereon. The Ld. AO, on ignoring the above stated documents, erred seriously in holding that appellant's purchase is ingenuine and bogus. 8.4 The appellant made only A/c payee cheque payments against supplies and had not made any unaccounted cash payment for purchase of goods. The name of such suppliers is reflected in the bank statements of the appellant....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... The Hon'ble Court further held that the Taxing Authorities were not required to put on blinkers while looking at the documents produced before them. They were entitled to look in to the surrounding circumstances to find out the reality of the recitals made in those documents. 8.7 In yet another case of casting of onus viz. Jamnaprasad Kanhaiyalal vs.CIT 130 ITR 244(SC), Hon'ble Apex Court while considering the scope of immunity u/s. 24 of F.No.(2) Act 1965 held that the immunity provided cannot be invoked in assessment proceedings relevant to any person other than the person making declaration under the Act. In that case, the firm Jamnaprasad Kanhaiyalal had shown cash credits in the names of 5 sons of Kanhaiyalal who had made voluntary disclosure under the Voluntary Disclosure Scheme of 1965 but the Ld. A.O. had not found the explanation satisfactory regarding the credit worthiness of the parties and the same came to be confirmed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. If against such strict terms of immunity, the Hon'ble Supreme Court could confirm the rejection of explanation of cash credit, in the instant case the appellant has failed to even corroborate the claim bef....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e can only arise if the Tribunal, which is vested with the authority to determine, finally all questions of fact, finds the evidence pro & con, so evenly balanced that it can come to no conclusion, then, the onus will determine the matter. Needless to say that the onus is heavy or light, depending on the facts and circumstances of each case. There cannot be any doubt that onus as a determining factor comes into play where, either there is no evidence on either side, or where it is equally worthless or where it is equally balanced. It is imperative to mention here that where such is not the case and all available evidence is considered, without reference to the onus and without relying on the circumstances that onus lies on a particular party, the issue is determined ; 6'n facts and the onus cannot be said to have influenced the decisions. However, in the instant case, the appellant has miserably failed to lead evidence and hence, onus is a determining factor. 8.11 The Hon'ble Supreme Court, in the case of Chuharmal v. CIT [1988] 1 250 / 38 Taxman 190 highlighted the fact that the principle of evidence are not to be ignored by the authorities, but at the same time, human ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ve been found to be non-existent. This is not merely a case where the supplier has failed to appear before the Assessing Officer. Hence, the judgment of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court relied upon by the appellant would be of no help. 8.15 The assesses often rely on the decision of Hon'ble ITAT Mumbai Bench in the case of Rajeev G. Kalathil in ITA Nos. 6727/Mum/2012 and CO No. 06/Mum/2014 where vide order dated 20-08-2014, the addition made on account of bogus purchases were deleted. However, I find that the finding of the Hon'ble ITAT is based on the peculiar facts of the case as in that case, goods received by the assessee from the supplier was admitted to have been transported by the transporter. However, in the present case, no such proof of delivery through a particular lorry number has been provided as far as the appellant's purchase is concerned. Thus, the decision rendered in the case of Rajeev G. Kalathil (supra) cannot be said to be applicable in this case. Similarly, decision of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in Nikunj Eximp (ITA No. 5604 of 2010) was rendered on the issue whether any substantial question of law was involved in that case. In fact, in ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Mohamed Salt (supra) is concerned there can be no dispute about the proposition laid down therein. However we have not been shown how the Tribunal was in breach of the same. We find that the Tribunal has considered the evidence of purchase and sale of shares to book long term and short term losses and taking all the evidence together including the surrounding circumstances reached a finding that the purchase and sale of shares is not genuine. So far as the decision of the Supreme Court in Vodafone International Holdings B.V. v. Union of India [2012] 204 Taxman 408 /17 taxmann.com 202 is concerned, the Court considered its decisions in the matters of Me Dowel! & Co. Ltd. v. Commercial Tax Officer [1985] 154 ITR 48/22 Taxman 11 (SCI Union of India v. Azadi Bachao Andolan [2004] 10 SCC 1 and the Mathuram Agarwal v. State of Madhya Pradesh [1999] 8 SCC 667 and concluded that where the transaction is not genuine but a colourable device there could be no question of tax planning. The Supreme Court in the aforesaid case after considering the aforesaid two decisions concluded as follows: "The majority judgment in McDowell held that "tax planning may be legitimate provided it is within ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....es for this Court to interfere." 8.17 Hon'ble Allahabad High Court while dealing with the issue of bogus purchase in the case of Sri Ganesh Rice Mills v. Commissioner of Income-tax [2007] 294 ITR 316 (ALL.), held as under : "Where Assessing Officer had recorded a finding that in order to lower profits, bogus purchases hod been introduced and Tribunal upheld such finding, addition on account of disallowance of such purchases was justified [Assessment year 1984-85]. The assessee was engaged in the production of gram, pulses, rice chunni-bhusi, etc. The Assessing Officer treated five purchases as bogus. That was done after making enquiries wherein he found that the parties mentioned at item Nos. 4 and 5 never existed. He therefore, made addition. The Tribunal also held that the purchases were bogus. Held that it was not the case of the assessee that he was a trader. On the other hand, the assessee was a manufacturer and in manufacturing process, chuni-bhusi also got manufactured as a byproduct. It was not the case of the assessee that it had made the purchases of chuni-bhusi from other persons also. The Assessing Officer had recorded a finding that in order to lower the prof....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....responding sales, then addition at what rate can be more justifiable than by the bogus purchase itself? 9. Likewise, there can be another situation also. The purchase may be bogus and correspondingly there may be a bogus sales also, and since both are bogus, the GP rate is obviously manipulated to affect the overall result. Then, accepting Shri Sanghvi's contention would further make the accounts bogus. Similarly, there may be many such situations because, accountancy is essentially an art and not a science. 10. The point we are trying to drive home is that when a bogus entry is found in accounts, there cannot be a better solution than to remove that entry. The legitimate way of removing the entry would be, as every student of accountancy would agree, is to do what has been omitted to be done or undo what has been wrongly done. 11. Now, so far we were only assuming that the purchases are bogus. Coming to the facts of the case, were the purchases worth Rs. 86,500 really bogus ? There is no doubt about it. The investigations got done by the Assessing Officer leave hardly any doubt about it. The failure on the part of the assessee to show cause strengthens the Department&....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... the Income-tax Officer is not entitled to make a pure guess and make an assessment without reference to any evidence or any material at all. There must be something more than bare suspicion to support the assessment under section 23(3). The rule of law on this subject has, in our opinion, been fairly and rightly stated by the Lahore High Court in the case of Seth Gurmukh Singh v. CIT [1944] 12 ITR 393...." (782) 41. In the present case we find that the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) as also the Tribunal has recorded a categorical, finding of fact that the applicant did not make purchases to the extent he has shown. The purchases in question have conclusively been provided to be bogus. If the purchases of the gas cylinders have not been made and on the other hand have been found to be bogus by all the authorities including the Tribunal, the question of legitimate outgoings in the form of purchases of the gas cylinders would not arise. Therefore, the Tribunal was justified in not giving benefit of the alleged amount spent towards the purchases of gas cylinders." 8.20. In Samurai Software (P.) Ltd. v. Commissioner of Income-tax [2008] 299 ITR 324 (RAJ.), it was held as un....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he order of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) and restored the addition of Rs. 4,37,048 in the hands of the appellant-company as was done by the Assessing Officer. 10. In so far as the addition of Rs. 4,37,048 in the hands of the appellant company is concerned, we are satisfied with the reasons given by the Tribunal in paragraph 6 of its order. The addition of the amount of Rs. 4,37,048 in the hands of the appellant-company cannot be said to be unjustified.". 8.21 In the case of Indian Woollen Carpet Factory vs. Income-tax Appellate Tribunal [2002] 125 TAXMAN 763 (RAJ.) it was held as under: ― "If the transactions were genuine and if the parties had migrated somewhere else, their latest addresses should have been supplied and burden was on the assessee to prove the genuineness of the transactions, when the assessee claimed that the purchases were genuine. It was true that no loan had been taken from those parties. The case before the Assessing Officer was that the assessee claimed some purchases from some parties, whom he could not produce or those parties were not available when the summon under section 131 was issued. Therefore, the initial dispute was with ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Commissioner of Income-tax v. Tribhovandas Bhimji Zaveri [2000] 74 ITD 92 (MUM.), Hon'ble Mumbai Bench of ITAT while dealing with the issue of bogus purchases where similar arguments were advanced to buttress the claim of purchases, held as under: "Considering the number of coincidences involved in the scheme, we are of the view that the entire scheme has been planned and coordinated by the assessee-firm. In the case of Homi Jehangir Gheesta v. CIT [1961] 41 ITR 135, the Apex Court held that while deciding an issue, the Tribunal can consider probabilities properly arising from the facts alleged or proved and by doing so the Tribunal does not indulge in conjectures, surmises or suspicions. The Apex Court expressed a similar view in the case of Sumati Dayal v. CIT [1995] 214 ITR 801/80 Taxman 89 (SC) and held that the decision of an adjudicating body based on surrounding circumstances and human probabilities is not bad in law and deserves to be upheld. In the case of McDowell & Co. Ltd. v. CTO [1985] 154 ITR 148/22 Taxman 11, the Apex Court held that colourable devices are not part of legitimate tax planning. Going by the ratio of these decisions, we are of the view that the a....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... principles of natural justice in R.S. Doss v. Union of India AIR 1967 SC 593. Referring to the same, the Supreme Court in Chairman, Board of Mining Examination v. Ramjee AIR 1977 SC 965, inter alia, held as follows: "Natural justice is no unruly horse, no lurking land mine, nor a judicial cure all. If fairness is shown by the decision maker to the man proceeded against, the form, features and the fundamentals of such essential processual propriety being conditional by the facts and circumstances of such situation, no breach of natural justice can be complained of. Unnatural expansion of natural justice, without reference to the administrative realities and other factors of a given case, can be exasperating. We can neither be finical nor financial but should be flexible yet firm in this jurisdiction....'" 8.26 In GTC Industries Ltd. v. Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax [1998] 65 ITD 380 (BOM), it was held as under: "105. In our opinion right to cross-examine the witness who made adverse report, is not an invariable attribute of the requirement of the dictum, 'audi alteram partem'. The principles of natural justice do not require formal cross-examination. For....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s with the remark that the address was incomplete. The Inspector deputed by the Income-tax Department also could not find any of the parties available at the given addresses. The assessee was unable to produce any confirmation from any of the parties. Though the assessee had claimed to have made payment by account payee cheques, upon verification it was found that the cheques were encashed by some other parties and not by the supposed sellers. 8.29 Having come to such a conclusion, however, the Tribunal was of the opinion that the purchases may have been made from bogus parties, nevertheless, the purchases themselves were not bogus. The Tribunal adverted to the facts and data on record and came to the conclusion that the entire quantity of opening stock, purchases and the quantity manufactured during the year under consideration were sold by the assessee. The purchases of the entire 1,02,514 meters of cloth were sold during the year under consideration. The Hon'ble Tribunal, therefore, accepted the assessee's contention that the finished goods were purchased by the assessee, may be not from the parties shown in the accounts, but from other sources. In that view of the ma....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he decision of the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in Bholanath Polyfab Pvt. Ltd. (supra), the profit margin embedded in such amounts of purchases could only be disallowed and subjected to tax. 8.31 Similarly, in yet another decision of Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in the case of CIT vs. Simit Sheth (2013) 38 Taxmann.com 385 (Guj), Hon'ble Court was seized with a similar issue where the A.O. had found that some of the alleged suppliers of steel to the assessee had not supplied any goods but had only provided sale bills and hence, purchases from the said parties were held to be bogus. The A.O. in that case added the entire amount of purchases to gross profit of the assessee. Ld. CIT(A) having found that the assessee had indeed purchased though not from named parties but other parties from grey market, partially sustained the addition as probable profit of the assessee. The Tribunal however, sustained the addition to the extent of 12.5%. Taking into account the above facts, the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court held that since the purchases were not bogus, but were made from parties other than those mentioned in books of accounts, only the profit element embedded in such purchas....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....mpossible that the Gross Profit is more than the sale itself. The Tribunal also found that the assessee has maintained the quantitative details in respect of materials purchased and sold. Considering peculiar facts of that case, the Tribunal arrived at the conclusion that it would be fair and reasonable to estimate the addition at Rs. 50,000/- as against the addition of Rs. 27,39,407/-made by the Assessing Officer. However, the Learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) considering the facts of the assessee's case, has sustained the addition at 12.5%. While doing so, he has also relied upon the decision of the Tribunal in the case of M/s. Vijay Proteins Ltd. 55 TTJ (Ahd) 76. In the case of M/s. Vijay Proteins Ltd. the Tribunal has sustained the addition of 25% of the bogus purchases. However, considering the facts of the assessee's case the CIT(A) restricted the disallowance to 12,5% as against 25% made in the case of M/s. Vijay Proteins Ltd. From these facts it is evident that the CIT(A) has sustained the addition at 12,5% of the non-genuine purchases considering the facts of the assessee's case. We, therefore, do not find any justification to interfere with the orde....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ooks of accounts, payment by way of account payee cheque and producing vouchers for sale of goods, such an addition could not be sustained." 3. THE ITAT "D" Bench, Mumbai in case of Ramesh Kumar & Co. Vs. ACIT [ITA No.2959/Mum/2014] has held that "Once the assessee has brought on record the details of payments by account payee cheque, it was incumbent on the AO to have verified the payment details from the bank of the assessee and also from the bank of the suppliers to verify whether there was any immediate cash withdrawal from their account. No such exercise has been done. The id. CIT(A) has also confirmed the addition made by the AO by going on the suspicion and the belief that the suppliers of the assessee are Hawala traders. We also find that no effort has been made to verify the work done by the assessee from the Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai. We agree with the submissions of the id. Counsel that if there were no purchase, the assessee would not have been in a position to complete the civil work." It was further held that "The payments have been made by account payee cheque which are duly reflected in the bank statement of the assessee. There is no evidence to sho....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... is not been taken in this case. Therefore, addition @ 12.5% of such purchases of Rs. 66,46,243/-, which comes out to Rs. 8,30,780/-is confirmed. Accordingly, Grounds No. 5 to 8 filed along Form No.35 dated 27.03.2014 are partly allowed. Sr. No. Name of the party PAN No. Amount (Rs.) 1. Growell Enterprises AHQPP1838A 11,33,755.00 2. Alpesh Trading Company AIRPP3049H 9,08,221.00 3. Shreeji Sales ADNPR3792A 9,08,221.00 4. Trishana Multrade Private Ltd. BMFPS9038A 3,71,280.00 5. Caprihans Trade Centre ADXPD0923F 7,12,738.00 6. SmartlingkTradex P. Ltd. AALCS4411B 1,97,860.00 7. Nisha enterprises AWCPS3492N 98,020.00 8. Monil Impex AAGPS5222E 1,53,010.00 9. Maruti corporation AOEC5997Q 4,34,780.00 10 Tara Enterprises AWTPS0269A 1,86,363.00 11. Bhumi enterprises AVCPS0096H 1,09,200.00 12. Deepak Sales Corporation ADBPJ9865G 2,17,390.00 13. Mayor Trading Company BMQPS9058H 66,7170.00 14. Pooja Traders ALIPS2588P 8,14,995.00 Total 69,13,0037- 8.36 The total purchases of Rs. Rs. 69,13,003/-, includes VAT of Rs. 2,66,760/, which is a Govt. tax and should not be included in the amount of purchases. Therefore, the amount of pu....