2018 (10) TMI 1292

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....g to Rs. 5,61,280/- for A.Y. 2009-10, Rs. 5,93,542/- for A.Y. 2010-11 and Rs. 9,36,462/- for A.Y. 2011-12. 3. Since the facts are common and connected, I am referring to the facts and figures from A.Y. 2009-10. 4. Brief facts of the case are as under: Assessment Year 2009-10 (I.T.No. 116) has been taken as lead year. The Return of Income in this case was filed on 27.09.2009 declaring total income of Rs. 8,15,510/-. Subsequently, the A.O. received information from Sales Tax Department and also from the office of DGIT (Inv), Mumbai that the appellant is a beneficiary of accommodation Bills of purchases from certain bogus Hawala Dealers. As per the information, the concerned Hawala Dealers had not sold any goods, but it had given acco....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....e A.O. refused to take the argument like cheque payment, bills, invoices, ledgers etc as a conclusive proof for genuineness of payment. Relying on certain case laws, the Assessing Officer finally concluded that the purchases from the above mentioned hawala dealers are not genuine and as per the ratio of judgement in the case of Vijay Protein Ltd. 1996 58 ITD 428 (Ahmedabad), 25% of such purchases was disallowed. 6. Against the above order assessee appealed before the ld. CIT(A). The ld. CIT(A) restricted the addition of 12.5% of the bogus purchase. 7. Against the above order of the ld. CIT(A), the assessee is in appeal before the ITAT. 8. I have heard the ld. Departmental Representative (ld. DR for short). A request for adjournment....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....een able to produce any of the parties. Neither the assessee has been able to produce any confirmation from these parties. In such circumstances, there is no doubt that these parties are non-existent. We find it further strange that assessee wants the Revenue to produce assessee's own vendors, whom the assessee could not produce. The purchase bills from these non-existent/bogus parties cannot be taken as cogent evidence of purchases. In light of the overwhelming evidence, the Revenue authorities cannot put upon blinkers and accept these purchases as genuine. This proposition is duly supported by Hon'ble Apex Court decision in the case of Sumati Dayal vs. CIT [1995] 214 ITR 801 (SC) and CIT vs. Durga Prasad More [1971] 82 ITR 540 (SC). In th....