9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2019 (3) TMI 722 - AT - Income TaxBogus purchases - addition @ 12.5% of the bogus purchases - bogus bills - accommodation entries - no actual delivery of goods - notices issued u/s 133(6) were returned back unserved by the postal authorities - ex-parte order - HELD THAT - Assessing Officer gathered information from the Investigation Wing that certain Hawala Operators were issuing bogus bills and were giving accommodation entries without actual affecting the delivery of goods. The assessee entered into purchase transactions with respect to nine parties mentioned in the assessment order. The notices issued u/s 133(6) of the Act, to the nine parties from whom the assessee claim to have made purchases, were returned back unserved by the postal authorities. The Sales Tax Department also informed that the impugned parties are bogus billers without effecting the delivery of goods. The assessee was asked to produce the necessary evidence for the purchases made from these parties. It was found that the impugned parties are issuing bogus bills. Thus, the Ld.Assessing Officer made the addition. It is further noted that before the Ld. Assessing Officer, the assessee agreed for addition @12.5% which resulted into the addition. Assessing Officer made independent enquiries and thus the genuineness of the transaction could not be established by the assessee, consequently, we find no infirmity in the order of the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals). It is affirmed. - Decided against assessee.
Issues Involved:
1. Addition of ?8,91,703/- as 12.5% of bogus purchases amounting to ?71,33,625/-. Detailed Analysis: 1. Addition of ?8,91,703/- as 12.5% of Bogus Purchases: The assessee challenged the order dated 17/02/2017 by the First Appellate Authority, Mumbai, which confirmed the addition of ?8,91,703/-, being 12.5% of the bogus purchases amounting to ?71,33,625/-. The assessee did not appear for the hearing despite receiving a notice, nor did they request an adjournment. Consequently, the tribunal proceeded ex-parte. The Revenue defended the addition made by the Assessing Officer (AO) and confirmed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal). The tribunal considered various decisions from higher courts to reach a fair conclusion. Relevant Case Laws: - Sanjay Oilcakes Industries vs. CIT (2009) 316 ITR 274 (Guj.): The Gujarat High Court upheld the Tribunal's decision, which confirmed 25% of the amounts claimed as fair and reasonable. The court noted that the apparent sellers were not traceable, suggesting that the parties were conduits created by the assessee to inflate purchase prices. - CIT vs. Bholanath Poly Fab. Pvt. Ltd. (2013) 355 ITR 290 (Guj.): The Tribunal concluded that the purchases were made from bogus parties, but the goods were actually received and sold. Therefore, only the profit margin embedded in the purchases was subjected to tax. - CIT vs. Vijay M. Mistry Construction Ltd. (2013) 355 ITR 498 (Guj.): The Tribunal restricted the disallowance to 25% of the purchases, considering it a fair estimate. The court held that the decision based on an estimate does not give rise to any question of law. - CIT vs. Ashish International Ltd. (ITA No.4299/2009): The Tribunal deleted the addition on account of bogus purchases as the assessee was not given an opportunity to cross-examine the concerned party, and the genuineness of the statement was not established. - CIT vs. M.K. Brothers (163 ITR 249): The Tribunal found no adequate evidence to conclude that the purchases were bogus, even though there were certain doubtful features. - DCIT vs. Rajeev G. Kalathil (2015) 67 SOT 52 (Mum. Trib.)(URO): The Tribunal noted that suspicion cannot replace evidence. The AO did not bring any independent and reliable evidence against the assessee to prove the non-genuineness of the purchases. - CIT vs. Nikunj Exim Enterprises Pvt. Ltd. (2015) 372 ITR 619 (Bom.): The Tribunal deleted the additions on account of bogus purchases, noting that the books of account were not rejected, sales were not doubted, and substantial sales were made to government departments. Tribunal's Conclusion: The Tribunal affirmed the addition made by the AO and confirmed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal). The AO gathered information from the Investigation Wing that certain Hawala Operators were issuing bogus bills without actual delivery of goods. The assessee entered into purchase transactions with nine parties, and the notices issued to these parties were returned unserved. The Sales Tax Department informed that these parties were bogus billers. The assessee failed to establish the genuineness of the transactions. Consequently, the Tribunal found no infirmity in the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal) and dismissed the appeal of the assessee. Final Order: The appeal of the assessee was dismissed. The order was pronounced in open court on 18/12/2018.
|
