TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2018 (9) TMI 421
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... and the same were distributed amongst his clients. The four invoices raised by M/s. Soumya Business for supply of 246 silder coins totally amounting to Rs. 15, 10, 354/- were also produced by the assessee in support of his claim. In order to verify the claim of the assessee, notice was sent by the A. O. to M/s. Soumya Business but the same could not be served by the notice server as the said party was not traceable at the address given in the bills. A summon issued by the A. O. u/s 131 at the said address was also returned back by the postal authority unserved. Even the assessee could not produce the said party for verification despite specific opportunity given by the A. O. in this regard. The A. O. also made enquiry with the concerned VAT Authority which revealed that the concerned dealer M/s. Soumya Business was indulging in issuing fake bills. It was also revealed that M/s. Soumya Business had disclosed the sale of Rs. 9, 04, 354/- only for the relevant quarter ended December 2012 and corresponding invoices were numbered from 287 to 336 which were not matching with the bills raised by the said party on the assessee. The said bill numbers however were not matching with the two ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rt lII for the period no sale is declared to Binod Kumar Kheria. (Photo copies of the said Annexure-B Part II and Part-III are enclosed). b. From the return uploaded by the dealer Sl. No. No. 47 - Information on issue and receipt of tax invoices, the dealer has declared that in the tax period 201210, Tax invoices issued from serial no. 200 to serial no. 230, in the tax period 201210, Tax invoices issued from serial no. 231 to serial no. 286 and in the tax period 201212, tax invoices issued from serial no. 287 to serial no. 336 (Photo copy enclosed). 3. Audit proceedings for 4QE 31. 3. 2013 were completed ex-parte. The assessed dues have been transferred to the T'RO, 24 Parganas for recovery. 4. Proceedings for cancellation of the VAT registration u/s 291(i)(c) of WBVAT Act 2003 is being processed. The dealer has issue fake bills to dealers of various charges and their respective charges are taking necessary action at their end. 5. The dealer has paid Rs. 11800 as VAT during the 4Q. E. 31. 3. 2013. 4. 4b. The copies of bills for purchase (Tax Invoice) issued by Soumya Business and submitted by the appellant have the following details: Tax Invo....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Return filed by Soumya Business. v. Further, during the assessment proceedings, despite several efforts, the proprietor of Soumya Business could not be located. In fact, the Sales Tax Department has also stated that he is not traceable. (vi) The most important input that the above quoted letter from the Dy. Commissioner of Sales Tax contains is that Soumya Business had been issuing fake bills to various persons and that the Sales Tax Department has initiated action against him. Perhaps, fearing some adverse consequence, the proprietor of Soumya Business is absconding. 4.4d. Looked at in this backdrop, the decisions relied upon by the appellant do not come to his rescue. In the cases referred above, the vendors were untraceable or were unresponsive as a result of which the AO(s) had disallowed the claims of the assessee. It is on this account that the Tribunals held that once the assessee had furnished the basic details related to the transaction and the existence of the vendors, their claims deserve to be allowed. However, in this case, though the vendor is absconding and is untraceable, there are other evidences on record which show that the quantum of transa....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....extent was sustained by the Ld. CIT(A) as the relevant bills were found to be not declared by the concerned supplier, M/s. Soumya Business for VAT purposes. He contended that if the said supplier had invaded VAT, the assessee's claim could not be doubted especially when the same was duly supported by the bills issued by the said party and payment against the same was made by cross-cheque. He contended that the onus to support and substantiate his claim for the business promotion expenses was duly discharged by the assessee and the Ld. CIT(A) was not justified in sustaining the disallowance made by the A. O. on this issue to the extent of Rs. 6, 06, 000/-. 5. The learned DR, on the other hand, submitted that the genuineness of the relevant two bills produced by the assessee in support of his claim for the business promotion expenses has been found to be doubtful by the authorities below on the basis of specific adverse findings and observations. In this regard, he invited my attention to the relevant portion of the assessment order to point out the enquiry conducted by the A. O. for verifying the claim of the assessee and the specific adverse findings resulted from such enquiry. ....