TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2018 (2) TMI 858
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... of 100% of the bogus purchases, which was reduced to 12.5% by the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal), which can be further reduced. The addition retained u/s 68 of the Act was also challenged by the ld. counsel by contending that proper opportunity was not provided to the assessee. On the other hand, Ms. N. Hemlatha, Ld. DR, strongly defended the addition made by the Assessing Officer by contending that the First Appellate Authority has taken a lenient view, therefore, the addition made by the Ld. Assessing Officer may be sustained. It was contended that the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal) reduced the addition to the extent which is not justified. 2.1. I have considered the rival submissions and perused the material available on record. So far as, the additions in both the years made u/s 69C of the Act is concerned, the facts, in brief, are that the assessee is an individual in the business of Iron and Steel, for Assessment Year 2010-11, the assessee declared income of Rs. 5,79,901/- on 15/10/2010 and for Assessment Year 2011-12, the assessee declared income of Rs. 8,77,805/- on 30/09/2011. A survey action u/s 133A of the Act was conducted on 24/01/2013, wherein, i....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....efore this Tribunal. 2.3. Before adverting further, if the observation made in the assessment order, leading to addition made to the total income, conclusion drawn in the impugned order, material available on record, assertions made by the ld. respective counsel, if kept in juxtaposition and analyzed, I deem it appropriate to consider various decisions from Hon'ble High Courts/Hon'ble Apex Court, so that I can reach to a proper conclusion. The Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in Sanjay Oilcakes Industries vs CIT (2009) 316 ITR 274 (Guj.) held as under:- "11. Having heard the learned advocates appearing for the respective parties, it is apparent that no interference is called for in the impugned order of the Tribunal dated April 29, 1994, read with the order dated September 29, 1994, made in miscellaneous application. In the principal order the Tribunal has recorded the following findings : "8.3. We have considered the rival submissions and perused the facts on record. In our opinion, the action of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) confirming 25 per cent. of the amounts claimed is fair and reasonable and no interference is called for. The Commis sio....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ks of account matches the purchase price stated to have been paid to other persons. The issue is whether the purchase price paid by the assessee is reflected as receipts by the recipients. The assessee has, by set of evidence available on record, made it possible for the recipients not being traceable for the purpose of inquiry as to whether the payments made by the assessee have been actually received by the apparent sellers. Hence, the estimate made by the two appellate authorities does not warrant interference. Even otherwise, whether the estimate should be at a particular sum or at a different sum, can never be an issue of law." In the aforesaid case, the Hon'ble High Court accepted that the apparent sellers, who issued the said bills were not traceable and the goods received from parties other than the persons, who had issued the bills for such goods. The purchases were shown to have been made by making payments, through banking channel and thus the apparent sellers were not genuine or were acting as conduit between the assessee and the actual seller. In such a situation, the conclusion drawn by the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal) as well as by the Tribunal was ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... as under:- "6. As is apparent from the facts noted hereinabove, the Commissioner (Appeals) after appreciating the evidence on record has found that the assessee had in fact made the purchases and, hence, the Assessing Officer was not justified in disallowing the entire amount. He, however, was of the view that the assessee had inflated the purchases and, accordingly, by placing reliance on the decision of the Tribunal in the case of Vijay Proteins (supra) restricted the disallowance to 20 per cent. The Tribunal in the impugned order has followed its earlier order in the case of Vijay Proteins to the letter and enhanced the disallowance to 25 per cent. Thus, in both cases, the decision of the Commissioner (Appeals) as well as that of the Tribunal is based on estimate. This High Court in the case of Sanjay Oil Cake [2009] 316 ITR 274 (Guj) has held that whether an estimate should be at a particular sum or at a different sum can never be a question of law. 7. The apex court in the case of Kachwala Gems [2007] 288 ITR 10 (SC) has held that in a best judgment assessment there is always a certain degree of guess work. No doubt, the authorities should try to make an hon....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s of MMTC ; and that while conducting the entire exercise MMTC would have to incur certain expenditure in transportation, in engaging personnel in the office and other operations and was accordingly of the view that there was no case of actual inflation of rates and deleted the addition. 12. The Tribunal, in the impugned order, has concurred with the findings recorded by the Commissioner (Appeals) and has found that the assessee had made purchases from MMTC at the prevailing market rates and that MMTC had incurred certain expenditure in engaging personnel in the office and other operations and would make some income from the entire exercise. In the circumstances, the purchases made by the assessee from MMTC would not be hit by the provisions of section 40A(2) of the Act. 13. Thus, the conclusion arrived at by the Tribunal is based on concurrent findings of fact recorded by the Commissioner (Appeals) as well as the Tribunal. It is not the case of the Revenue that the Tribunal has taken into account any irrelevant material or that any relevant material has not been taken into consideration. In the absence of any material to the contrary being pointed out on behalf o....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e Tribunal, the assessee produced the evidence that the crane in question was registered with the RTO and the same was wholly and exclusively used for the purposes of its business. The Tribunal, therefore, held that the Commissioner (Appeals) was legally and factually correct in deleting the disallowance of cost of crane as well as depreciation thereon. 16. From the facts emerging from the record, it is apparent that the assessee had never claimed the cost of the crane in the return nor had it debited the expenses to the profit and loss account, and as such the question of disallowing the same and adding the same to the income would not arise. Moreover, in the absence of any evidence to indicate that the purchase was bogus or that the crane in fact did not exist, the question of disallowing the deprecation in respect of the same also would not arise. When the assessee had conclusively proved the purchase and existence of the crane, and had not debited the expenses to the profit and loss account, no addition could have been made in respect of the purchase price nor could have depreciation been disallowed in respect thereof. The Tribunal was, therefore, justified in deleting....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ave been made to the Government Department, i.e., Defence Research and Development Laboratory, Hyderabad. Further, there were confirmation letters filed by the suppliers, copies of invoices for purchases as well as copies of bank statement all of which would indicate that the purchases were in fact made. In our view, merely because the suppliers have not appeared before the Assessing Officer or the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), one cannot conclude that the purchases were not made by the respondent-assessee. The Assessing Officer as well as the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) have disallowed the deduction of Rs. 1.33 crores on account of purchases merely on the basis of suspicion because the sellers and the canvassing agents have not been produced before them. We find that the order of the Tribunal is well a reasoned order taking into account all the facts before concluding that the purchases of Rs. 1.33 crores was not bogus. No fault can be found with the order dated April 30, 2010, of the Tribunal." 2.8. The Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in CIT vs M.K. Brothers (163 ITR 249) held/observed as under:- "Being aggrieved by the aforesaid order, the assessee we....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... the order of the AO, assessee preferred an appeal before the First Appellate Authority(FAA).Before him it was argued that assessee had filed copies of bills of purchase from DKE and NBE, that both the suppliers were registered dealers and were carrying proper VAT and registration No.s, that ledger accounts of the parties in assessee's books showed bills accounted for, that payment was made by cheques, that a certificate from the banker giving details of cheque payment to the said parties was also furnished. Copies of the consignment, received from the Government approved transport contractors showing that material purchased was actually delivered at the site was furnished before the AO. It was also argued that some of the material purchased from the said parties were lying part of closing stock as on 31.03.2009 as per the statement submitted on record. After considering the assessment order and the submissions made by the assessee, FAA held that the transactions were supported by proper documentary evidences, that the payments made to the parties by the assessee were in confirmation with bank certificate,t hat the suppliers was shown as default under the Maharashtra VAT Act co....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....eculiar facts and circumstances of the case under appeal, we are of the opinion that the order of the FAA does not suffer from any legal infirmity and there are not sufficient evidence on file to endorse the view taken by the AO. So, confirming the order of the FAA, we decide ground no.1 against the AO." 2.10. The ratio laid down in the case of M/s Neeta Textiles vs Income Tax Officer 6138/Mum/2013, order dated 27/05/2013, Shri Jigar V. Shah vs Income Tax Officer (ITA No.1223/M/2014) order dated 22/01/2016, M/s Imperial Imp. & Exp. vs Income Tax Officer ITA No.5427/Mum/2015, order dated 18/03/2016 supports the case of the assessee and the conclusion drawn in the impugned order. However, as relied by the Ld. DR, the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in the case of N.K. Industries Ltd.,etc vs DCIT (supra) considering various decisions decided the issue in favour of the Revenue and the Hon'ble Apex Court dismissed the SLP vide order dated 16/01/2017 (SLP No.(c) 769 of 2017). I find that in that case, during search proceedings, certain blank signed cheque books and vouchers were found and thus the purchases made from these concerns, were treated as bogus by the Assessing Officer. ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s taken a reasonable, which requires no interference. So far as, the contention of the Ld. counsel for the assessee, that GP of last ten year was not more than 4% is concerned, it depends upon the facts of the each case and probably in other years there may not be allegation of bogus purchases and each year is independent. No material was produced before this Tribunal contradicting the factual finding recorded in the impugned order. Thus, on this ground, I find no merit in the claim of the assessee, resultantly, for both years, being on identical facts/issues, the ground raised by the assessee is dismissed. 3. The next common ground raised by the assessee pertains to addition of Rs. 4,12,416/-(Assessment Year 2010- 11) and Rs. 6,74,040/- (Assessment Year 2011-12) made u/s 68 of the Act. The crux of the argument on behalf of the assessee that complete cash books should have been examined by the Assessing Officer. On the other hand, the ld. DR, empathetically contended that on examination of cash books, negative balance was found and no evidence was produced by the assessee to substantiate his claim. 3.1. As per the provisions of section 68 of the Act, the assessee is expected ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ted by the assessee, is on him and where it is not satisfactorily explained, it is open to the Revenue to hold that it is income of the assessee and no further burden lies on the Revenue to show that income is from any other particular source. Where the assessee failed to prove satisfactorily the source and nature of such credit, the Revenue is free to make the addition. The principle laid down in Ganpati Mudaliar (1964) 53 ITR 623/A. Govinda Rajulu Mudaliar (34 ITR 807)(SC) and also CIT vs Durga Prasad More (72 ITR 807)(SC) are the landmark decisions. The ratio laid down therein are that if the explanation of the assessee is unsatisfactory, the amount can be treated as income of the assessee. The ratio laid down in Daulat Ram Rawatmal 87 ITR 349 (SC) further throws light on the issue. In the case of a cash entry, it is necessary for the assessee to prove not only the identity of the creditor but also the capacity of the creditor and genuineness of the transactions. The onus lies on the assessee, under the facts available on record. A harmonious construction of section 106 of the evidence Act and section 68 of the Income Tax Act will be that apart from establishing the identity of ....