TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2023 (4) TMI 805
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....n such undisclosed income ; 2. That the CIT(A) was not justified in upholding the rejection of declaration made by the Appellant under income disclosure scheme 2016, wherein the Appellant had categorically declared the undisclosed income in form of alleged bogus purchase @ 8.83% to income and has already made corresponding and applicable payment of tax (along with interest) on such undisclosed income under income disclosure scheme 2016 ; 3. The under the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned Assessing Officer erred in presuming and holding the purchases made from the four parties totaling Rs.2,97,87,500/- as 'bogus', merely on the basis of statement recorded of third party Shri Kamlesh Kesharwani u/s.131 of Income Tax Act, 1961. The resultant disallowance @ 25% of total purchase from four parties only on the basis of statement of the aforesaid third person (which could not even be rebutted by the Appellant for want of opportunity and cross examination) renders such disallowance violative of principles of natural justice; 4. That the Ld.CIT (A) was not justified in confirming the disallowance of 25 % of total purchase as the same is unjustified, especially i....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s further submitted that the Hon'ble Supreme Court had thereafter vide its order dated April,27, 2021 restored its earlier order dated March 08, 2021, and it was provided that the period of limitation w.e.f. March 15, 2020 would stand extended till further order. It is also submitted by the assessee that in view of the second Covid-19 wave in India, the Hon'ble Apex Court had pursuant to its aforesaid orders directed that the period of limitation as prescribed under any general or special laws in respect of all judicial or quasi-judicial proceedings, whether condonable or not, shall stand extended till further order. It is further submitted by the assessee that considering the extended period of limitation no delay was involved in filing of the present appeal by the assessee company. Alternatively, it is submitted by the assessee that in case delay, if any, was involved in filing of the present appeal, then the same be condoned as the assessee for sufficient reasons was prevented from filing its appeal within the stipulated time period. 3. Per contra, the Ld. Departmental Representative (for short 'DR') did not object to the seeking of condonation of the impugned delay involved in....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s and certain rice millers who had admitted of their involvement in providing/facilitating bogus bills in lieu of commission, and referring to their statements which were recorded u/s.131 of the Act a/w. those recorded in the course of their cross examination by rice millers who were alleged by them as beneficiary, it was observed by the A.O that brokers namely, Shri Sanjay Sharma, Shri Aditya Sharma, Shri Kamelsh Kesharwani, Shri Ghanshuam Rijwani and Shri Narad Sahu had stated on oath that they had provided bogus entries or bogus bills to various rice millers. It was also observed by the A.O that the assessee had failed to substantiate the genuineness of the purchases claimed to have been made from the aforementioned parties on the basis of supporting documentary evidences, viz. delivery challans. 8. The A.O considering the fact that the 4 parties from whom the assessee company had claimed to have made purchases of Rs.2,97,87,500/- were in the course of investigation found to be bogus firms, thus, called upon it to substantiate the authenticity of the impugned purchase transactions on the basis of supporting documentary evidence. The assessee firm failed to lead any documentary ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....fore us. As the assessee appellant despite having been intimated about the hearing of appeal had failed to put up an appearance, therefore, we are constrained to proceed with and dispose off the appeal as per Rule 24 of the Appellate Tribunal Rules, 1963, i.e, after hearing the respondent revenue and perusing the orders of the lower authorities. 12. We have heard the Ld. DR, perused the orders of the lower authorities and the material available on record, as well as considered the judicial pronouncements that have been pressed into service by him to drive home his contentions. 13. We have given a thoughtful consideration to the issue in hand, i.e., dubbing of the impugned purchases as bogus by the lower authorities, as well as quantification of the profit which the assessee would have made by procuring the goods in question at a discounted value from the open/grey market. As the assessee company had failed to place on record copies of delivery challans pertaining to the impugned purchase transactions in question, therefore, it can safely be held that no infirmity emerges from the orders of the lower authorities that no genuine purchases were made by the assessee company from the ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....lves to concur with the same. 17. Ostensibly the assesee had purchased the goods in question not from the aforementioned four parties but at a discounted value from the parties operating in open/grey market. Our indulgence in the present appeal in the backdrop of dubbing of the impugned purchases by us as bogus, thus, boils down to the quantification of the profit which the assessee would have made by procuring the goods in question at a discounted value from the open/grey market. 18. Admittedly the addition in the hands of the assessee is liable to be restricted only to the extent of the profit which the assessee would have made by procuring the goods at a discounted value from the open/grey market as against the inflated value at which the same were booked on the basis of the bogus bills in its books of account. In so far the issue of quantification of profit which the assessee would have made by procuring the goods in question from the open/grey market is concerned, we find that the Hon'ble High Court of Bombay in the case of Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax-17 Vs. M/s. Mohhomad Haji Adam & Company, ITA No.1004 of 2016, dated 11.02.2019 while upholding the order of the Tribunal,....