TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2018 (10) TMI 1181
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ed appeal was disposed of by Bench "G" of the Incometax Appellate Tribunal comprising of Hon'ble Shri Mahavir Singh, JM and Hon'ble Shri G. Manjunatha, AM, by their consolidated order dated 08.06.2018. 2. The applicant submits that there are certain mistakes apparent from the record in the order passed dated 08.06.2018. The same are as under i) In para 6, page 11 of the ITAT order, it is observed that - "..... The learned counsel for the assessee also filed complete stock register and stated tha! the AO has not doubted the sales executed by the assessee on account of purchase disclose from hawala parties...... " There is an error in the above observation because the purchases made of Rs. 4,59,25,643/- in AY 2010-11; Rs. 6,96,36,974/- in AY 2011-12 & Rs. 2,64,43,393/- in AY 2012-13 relates to purchases of gift items, etc. which are distributed to dealers etc. Thus, there is NO SALE of such goods and are NOT included in stock register - as observed in the ITAT order. These are vital facts of the present case and therefore the observation made in ITAT order requires modification/rectification. ii) In para 8, page 15 of the ITAT order, it is ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....I am willing to offer the unverifiable purchases to the extent of Rs. 16,30,73,214 for taxation in the relevant year....... " The above offer was thereafter contested on merits in the course of assessment proceedings and also during CIT(A) appellate proceedings. However, the ITAT order docs not contain this factual aspect of the matter. Hence, there is error and requires modification/rectification. v) In first para, page 2 of ITAT order, it is mentioned that "these three appeals by the assessee are arising out of the orders of Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)- 44, Commissioner of Income Tax (A)~48 Mumbai ..... " The applicant submits that the three appeals are arising out of the orders of-CIT (A) - 12 for AY 2010-11, CIT (A) - 48 for AY 2011-12 & CIT (A) - 52 for AY 2012-13. Hence, this is factual error and requires modification / rectification. vi) On the first page of ITAT order, the Respondents for each of the three asstt. years are required to be mentioned as under in place of "The Dy.Commissioner of Income-tax, Circle-6(2)" mentioned as common for all three asstt. years. A.Y.2010-11 : Dy.CIT Circle-6(2), Aaykar Bhavan, M.K.Road, Mu....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nsidered the arguments of the Ld.Counsel, we find that there is a factual error in recording the facts in respect of the Commissioners of Appeals, who had disposed of the appeals and accordingly, the same has been modified as under:- "1. These three appeals by the assessee are arising out of the orders of Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals)-44, Mumbai in appeal No.CIT(A)-12-IT-204/DCIT 6(3)(1)/2015-16, CIT(A)-48, Mumbai, No.CIT(A)-48- IT.594/ACCC-13/2014-15 and CIT(A)- 52/IT/DC-CC-2(3)/300/2016-17 dated 28.01.2016, 20.11.2015, 08.03.2017." 7. The Ld.AR referring to miscellaneous application, submitted that in para 6, page 11 of the ITAT order it was observed that the Ld.Counsel for the assessee has filed complete stock register and stated that the AO has not doubted the sales executed by the assessee on account of purchases disclosed from hawala parties. But, while narrating facts of the case, the ITAT has ignored the arguments made by the Ld.Counsel that the assessee is involved in the business of manufacturing pharmaceutical products. In the process, it has purchased gift items, etc. which are distributed to dealers directly from its godown at Bhiwandi, Mumbai where ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... The ITAT's order does not contain this factual aspect of the matter and hence, needs modification / rectification. 8. The Ld.DR, on the other hand, submitted that the ITAT has considered all arguments of both the sides while deciding the issue. Therefore, there is no merit in the contents of miscellaneous applications filed by the assessee and hence, miscellaneous applications filed by the assesse may be rejected. 9. We have heard both the parties, perused the material available on record and gone through the order passed by the ITAT on 08-06-2018. The assessee has narrated the mistakes apparent in the order dated 08- 06-2018 insofar as factual aspects of the matter, but never disputed the final conclusion arrived at by the ITAT in directing the AO to estimate 30% net profit on alleged bogus purchases. We find that while narrating the facts, the ITAT has stated that the assessee has purchased goods from grey market and to cover up such purchases, obtained bogus purchase bills from hawala operators. We further notice that the ITAT further stated that the assessee has furnished complete details of stock registers and also the AO and the Ld.CIT(A) never disputed sales declared ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....to manage sales. The sales promotional items purchased by the assessee from alleged hawala dealers are distributed from its own godown at Bhiwandi, Mumbai where from about 90% of the promotional items are purchased, are delivered. The said sales promotional items including booklets containing product details, etc., are distributed through the C&F agents across the country. The assessee is purchasing these sales promotional items regularly since from beginning. The department never disputed the sales promotional expenses claimed by the assessee for the earlier years. During the year under consideration, only on the basis of information received from DGIT(Inv) which is supported by the findings of Sales-tax department, the AO has disputed the sales promotion expenses ignoring all evidences filed by the assessee including complete details of purchases and distribution of such sales promotional items. It is not the case of the department that payment made for these purchases came back to the assessee from the suppliers withdrawing equal cash from their bank accounts against payment received from the assessee. The assessee has also not taken any credit for the sales-tax paid by it on th....