TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2018 (7) TMI 1686
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....posed of all the appeals. Subsequently, assessee filed Misc. Application Nos. 37 to 40/VIZ/2017 to recall the order passed by the Tribunal on the ground that while passing the order, Tribunal has not adjudicated ground Nos.5 & 6 raised by the assessee. The Tribunal vide order dated 18/04/2018, has recalled the common order passed in these appeals to adjudicate ground Nos. 5 & 6. For the sake of convenience, ground Nos. 5 & 6 raised in ITA No.556/VIZ/2014 for Assessment Year 2008-09 are taken up for hearing, which are as follows:- "5. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Visakhapatnam, ought to have at least considered the alternative grounds raised by the appellant instead of relying on the information furnished by the DRI Dep....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... unit and Hyderabad unit on 10/12/2008 on the business and residential premises of the assessee. During the course of search, imported goods & equipments worth Rs. 8.28 crores were seized. Apart from, laptops, hard disc drives, mobile handsets and incriminating documents were also seized. The statements of assessee, his wife, his employees and associates were recorded. One of the overseas supplier Shri Lim Eng Bee, Managing Director of M/s. EB Me Sun Pte Ltd., Singapore was also examined. Statements of Shri Girish Hindelkar, proprietor of Mamta Exim Services (MES), CG International (CGI), the concerns which were utilized for import of equipment / machinery by the assessee were recorded. The DRI authorities after the scrutiny of the document....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... upheld and the grounds raised by the assessee may be dismissed. 6. We have heard both the sides, perused the material available on record and orders of the authorities below. 7. The assessee has not filed any information neither before the Assessing Officer nor before the ld. CIT(A), even before the ITAT also. Therefore, under these facts and circumstances of the case, the Assessing Officer has considered the information furnished by the DRI, Department of Customs Authorities and assessment is passed, which was confirmed by the ld. CIT(A). Even before us, the assessee has not filed any independent information in respect of addition made by the authorities below. Therefore, we find no reason to interfere with the order passed by the l....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... between the invoice value and the actual purchase value paid to the overseas supplies through non-banking channels. He also pointed out that before the Assessing Officer assessee himself admitted in reply to a query that he has not under invoicing the sales. The admission made is only a creation by the DRI, but not made any statement in respect of under invoicing. As the issue under invoicing sales does not arise in this appeal, therefore the alternative plea raised by the assessee may be dismissed. 10. We have heard both the sides, perused the material available on record and orders of the authorities below. 11. The first argument raised by the Authorised Representative for the assessee of the assessee is section 69C has no applicat....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....er invoicing of imported goods and not considered under valuation of sales and submitted that the only profit element has to be subjected to addition and not the entire amount. Insofar as this plea is concerned, the DRI authorities after scrutiny of the documents seized and analysis of GEQD reports and after inquiries with the assessee and his associates and relevant documents, came to the conclusion that the assessee was involved in under valuing of imported goods, it has declared lesser value, than the actual value of the goods imported from the invoices submitted for customs to avoid customs duty and the difference between the invoice value and the actual value paid to the overseas suppliers through non-banking channels. The assessee has....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....re cannot be taken as a genuine and it may not be out of place to mention that the assessee has admitted the under valuation of the goods before the DRI, Hyderabad unit and paid an amount of Rs. 150 lakhs towards differential duties. The remand report received by the ld. CIT(A) has been forwarded to the assessee vide letter dated 21/11/2013. The assessee submitted his explanation dated 31/01/2014 to the remand report stating that there is nothing to comment. Now raising the issue of under invoicing the sales, cannot be considered. In his letter dated 10/10/2013, which was reproduced at page No.10 (para3) of the ld. CIT(A)'s order, wherein assessee has submitted that the imported machinery was sold at the rates at which they were recorded in....