TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2018 (10) TMI 1936
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 3,05,505 2 Dipesh Metal Pvt. Ltd. 2009-10 20,92,778 3 Kailash Metal Pvt. Ltd. 2009-10 15,43,158 4 Dev Deep Steel 2009-10 2,54,575 5 Moksha Metals Pvt. Ltd. 2009-10 1,30,395 6 Kanak Steel (India) 2009-10 24,93,698 7 Bohra Metal Industries 2009-10 6,97,327 8 Bhandar Steel Industries 2009-10 2,69,007 9 Raj Impex 2009-10 4,51,483 10 Ratandeeplmpex 2009-10 5,08,662 11 ShubhLabh Metal and Alloys 2009-10 16,00,807 12 Stelco Steel Industries 2009-10 10,45,435 13 Rolex Trading Co. 2009-10 9,79,158 14 Shree Kesharlmpex Metals Pvt. Ltd. 2009-10 2,97,820 15 Vishal Pipe Fittings 2009-10 3,17,895 16 Priya Steel Corporation 2009-10 10,42,145 17 Wel Steel (India) 2009-10 3,11,835 Total 1,43,41,683 Based on this, notice u/s.148 of the Act was issued on 18.09.2014. In response to the said notice, the AR of the appellant requested to treat the return of income originally filed as return filed in response to the notice u/s. 148 of the Act. 4. In the assessment order, the A.O. observed that the assessee is an individual running proprietary firm by the name M/s. Aristo Pipe & Fittings. The AO issued notices u/s. 1....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....regards the merits he confirmed the A.O.'s action by holding as under: 6.4. It is an undisputed fact that the assessing officer identified parties based on information received from Investigation Wing. On his part, the AO has also gone into the issue by sending 133(6) notices. And deputing an inspector to serve the notices and make inquiries. However, as far as the evidence submitted by the appellant is also concerned, the appellant has filed his own books, purchase bills/challans, ledger accounts and has its own bank statement to further his argument. The fact that the payments are being made through cheques is not something that is being doubted. In fact, the contentious issue is that these parties which are indicated by the Sales Tax Department through a procedure which appears to be technically correct on paper, are in fact engaged in false billing for a fee/commission. The onus of proving the entire transactions to be genuine is definitely on the tax payer, when it is making the claim of purchase and especially in light of the doubt that has been raised by the enquiries conducted by the Sales Tax Department, the onus is even more on the tax payer to show that as far as he is....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....k accounts, which was returned to beneficiaries of bogus bills after deduction of their agreed commission. The Assessee was stated to be one of the beneficiaries of these bogus entries of sale of material from hawala entry operators in favour of the assessee wherein the assessee made alleged bogus purchases through these bogus bills issued by hawala entry providers in favour of the assessee. These dealers were surveyed by the Sales Tax Investigation Department whereby the directors of these dealers have admitted in a deposition vide statements/affidavit made before the Sales Tax Department that they were involved in. issuing bogus purchase bills without delivery of any material. There is a list of such parties wherein the assessee is stated to be beneficiary of bogus purchase bills. 9. From the above, we find that tangible and cogent incriminating material were received by the AO which clearly showed that the assessee was beneficiary of bogus purchase entries from bogus entry providers which formed the reason to believe by the AO that income has escaped assessment. The information so received by the AO has live link with reason to believe that income has escaped assessment. On th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ecided on the basis of the Hon'ble Apex Court decision, the other case laws referred by assessee are not supporting the assessee's case. 11. As regards the merits of addition, we find that credible and cogent information was received in this case by the assessing officer that certain accommodation entry provider/bogus suppliers were being used by certain parties to obtained bogus bills. The assessee was found to have taken accommodation entry/bogus purchase bills during the concerned assessment year from different parties. Based upon this information assessment was reopened. In such factual scenario Assessing Officer has made the necessary enquiry. The issue of notice to all the parties have returned unserved. Assessee has not been able to provide any confirmation from any of the party. Assessee has also not been able to produce any of the parties. The necessary evidence for transportation of goods have not been provided by the assessee. In this factual scenario it is amply that assessee has obtained bogus purchase bills. Mere preparation of documents for purchases cannot controvert overwhelming evidence that the provider of these bills are bogus and non-existent and there is no c....