TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2022 (6) TMI 67
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....assessee to cross-examine them. It is, therefore, the Ld. AO issued a notice under section 142(1) of the Act on 8.8.2018 to call for the details of three parties. The assessee sought adjournment vide letter dated 13.8.2018. The case was adjourned to 20.8.2018. The assessee vide letter dated 18.8.2018 filed confirmation letter from three parties, but the assessee has not filed return of income, bank details and any other evidence relating to three parties. The above three confirmation letters are dated 6.1.2011 which were filed in the original assessment itself and not any new documents. Therefore, in order to cross-verify the genuineness of the transactions, summons under section 131 of the Act was issued on 10.9.2018 to Ashirwad Broker, Lalitbhai Dalai and Mahav Broker at the address given in the confirmation letter by speed post. However, all three summons have returned back as unserved by the postal authority with the remarks "not known or insufficient address". Therefore, the Ld. AO issued a letter dated 10.9.2018 to the assessee with a request to ensure personal presence of the above said three parties on 20.9.2018. There was no response against the summons issued to the three....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....I and even the assessee is not able to produce them. Thus, the assessee has grossly failed to establish the genuineness of the purchases. This shows that the alleged purchases shown from these three parties are bogus and accordingly need to be treated. 5.10. In view of the above discussion, the claim of the assessee for purchase to the tune of Rs. 29,97,477/- from the following parties/brokers is being treated as unproved/bogus: Sr. No. Name Purchases in (Rs.) 1. Ashirwad Broker 16,22,425/- 2. Lalitbhai Dalai 10,73,637/- 3. Madhav Broker 3,01,415/- Total: 29,97,477/- Further, penalty proceedings u/s. 271(1)(c) of the IT. Act, 1961 are also initiated separately on the unproved/bogus purchases for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income by the assessee company." 3. Aggrieved against this order, the assessee filed an appeal before the Ld. CIT(A)-8, Ahmedabad. In the course of appellate proceedings, the assessee filed written submissions before the Ld. CIT(A) stating that the assessee was not able to produce three brokers due to the fact that more than ten years had passed when the impugned transactions were c....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....er, SLP filed against this judgment is dismissed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, which is reported in (2017) 84 taxmann.com 195 (SC). Thus, Ld. CIT(A) dismissed the appeal of the assessee. 4. Aggrieved against the same, the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal raising the grounds of appeal "as per attachment". But we do not find any such "attachment" with the appeal memo stating grounds of appeal raised by the assessee. However, the assessee filed a written arguments dated 30.4.2022 and non-appeared on behalf of the assessee before the Tribunal. So the case is taken up for hearing with the written submissions dated 30.4.2022 filed by the assessee, and with the help of the Ld. DR who has also filed his written submission dated 10.5.2022 on 11.5.2022. The grounds raised by the assessee in the written arguments are as follows: i) Ground No. 1 This ground pertains to the action of the AO in treating genuine purchases of Rs. 29,97,477/- as unproved/bogus; ii) Ground No. 2: This ground pertains to treating the entire purchases of Rs. 29,97,477/- as bogus and adding the same as income; iii) Ground No. 3 : This ground pertains to the reduction from the ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....st two conditions are satisfied as above, the claimed of the-record purchase transactions from unidentified parties would have to pass through the rigours of technical and mandatory provisions such as Sections 40A(3) and Section 69C. This fold of reasoning has found even an express approval of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case-NK Proteins Ltd. vs. DCIT [2017] 84 taxmann.com 195 (SC). Hence, on the facts and circumstances of the present case, where there is complete failure of the appellant in leading any independent evidence in support of the genuineness of the impugned purchases, the whole of the sum has rightly been disallowed by the Ld. AO and upheld by the Ld. CIT(A). ..... .... .... .... Ground No. 3 3.2 In this connection, it is respectfully submitted that this contention of the appellant suffers from conceptual infirmity. In the present appeal Revenue's case is suppression of profits in. the hands of the appellant by way of introducing bogus claims of expenditure pertaining to the three brokers that were found to be practically nonexistent. Thus, the core allegation is that goods corresponding to the three alleged purchases never ....