TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2018 (3) TMI 1894
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....issioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred in not sustaining 100% disallowance of bogus purchase by the assessing officer. 3. In the assessee's appeal, the issue raised is that the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred in sustaining 25% disallowance of the bogus purchase. 4. In the cross objection, the issue raised is that the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has not appreciated that assessee has not been allowed the opportunity to cross examine hawala dealers. It has further been stated that the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has obtained behind the back of the assessee consent from the consultant for 25% disallowance of the bogus purchase. 5. At the outset, we note that there is a delay of 368 days in f....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....6,323/- 8 Rushabh Enterprises 7,18,523/- 9 H.R. Sales Pvt. Ltd. 10,17,117/- TOTAL 1,78,56,471/- 8. During the course of assessment proceedings, in order to justify the genuineness of purchases, the notices u/s. 133(6) of the I.T. Act, 1961, were issued to the above partners, on given addresses, but returned back unserved with a remark "not know". The Assessing Officer did not accept the explanation of the assessee for the reason that the assessee neither could furnish the confirmation / current mailing address, corroborative evidences, date-wise stock inward / outward register etc. nor could produce these hawala parties, for examination. In view of these facts, the Assessing Officer disallowed entire hawala purcha....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....dresses provided by the assessee. All these notices have returned unserved. Assessee has not been able to produce any of the parties. The assessing officer has noted that there is no cogent evidence of the provision of goods. 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. 11. Hence purchase bills from these non-existent the/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 214 ITR 801 and Durga Pr....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... "Considering the law declared by the Supreme Court in the case of Vijay Proteins Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax, Special Leave to Appeal (C) No.8956/2015 decided on 06.04.2015 whereby the Supreme Court has dismissed the SLP confirmed the order dated 09.12.2014 passed by the Gujarat High Court and other decisions of the High Court of Gujarat in the case of Sanjay Oilcake Industries Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax (2009) 316 ITR 274 (Guj) and N.K. Industries Ltd. Vs. Dy. C.I.T., Tax Appeal No.240/2003 decided on 20.06.2016, the parties are bound by the principle of law pronounced in the aforesaid three judgments. 14. Upon careful consideration we find that sales in this case have not been doubted. As held by the Hon'ble ju....