TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2020 (3) TMI 281
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... ld. DR. 3. The only issue in on merits, in this appeal of assessee is against the order of CIT(A) confirming the addition made of the AO on the bogus purchases. 4. Briefly stated facts are that the assessee is engaged in the business of manufacturing in excisable goods. The AO received information from DGIT (Investigation), who in turn received information from Sales Tax Department, Mumbai that the assessee has made purchases from hawala parties, as listed in hawala dealers by the Maharashtra Sales Tax Department who are providing bogus bills of purchase amounting to Rs. 46,644/- as admitted by these hawala dealers in their deposition before the authorities. The same reads as under: - "Sl No. Name of party Amount 1. Naman Enterpr....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....esses from MIs. Om Traders. The argument of assessee is that assessee had produced relevant purchase bill and had shown the proof of payment through bank account and that the purchases were genuine. The facts of the case are discussed in detail in the assessment order and the submissions made by assessee were aso brought into the assessment order elaborately. In this case the assessment was reopened by assessing officer on the basis of information received from the other evidences regarding accommodation entry bills received by assesses from this party. Subsequently assessing officer issued notice u/s 133(6). In response to this notice Shri Harshit Mehta, proprietor of MIs. Om Traders only submitted ITR-V filed by him and stated that since ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... assesses is subsequently sold as such. In case of assessee, being a manufacturer, the purchases subsequently have to be utilized in the manufacturing process and unless assessee successfully demonstrates through the internal record-keeping as to where this particular disputed item was utilized or consumed. The onus cannot be held to be discharged and assessing officer can very well make the addition of bogus purchase as assessee has not been able to substantiate the genuineness of purchases specifically in the light of various circumstantial evidences that the party from whom the purchases are shown is not genuine supplier of goods. In view of above facts of assessee's case, the addition made by assessing officer is upheld and the ground....