9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2020 (7) TMI 130 - AT - Income TaxReopening of assessment - bogus purchases - According to AO, merely using of banking channels for payments could not establish the genuineness of the transaction, when the accommodation entry provider has himself on oath submitted that they are providing accommodation entry - HELD THAT - Similar matter has been adjudicated by this Tribunal. It has been brought to my notice by the ld.AR of the assessee that this Tribunal has deleted similar addition in the case of M/s. M.B Jewellers Sons vs. DCIT 2018 (5) TMI 1695 - ITAT KOLKATA wherein on similar grounds/facts the additions made by the AO on the strength of statement of ShriRajendra Jain had been deleted. - Decided in favour of assessee.
Issues Involved:
1. Non-supply of information received by the Assessing Officer (AO) from the Director of Income Tax (Investigation) (D.I. (Inv)). 2. Treatment of purchase from AVI Exports as bogus and unexplained expenditure. Issue-wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Non-supply of Information Received by AO: The assessee contended that the assessment order was "bad, illegal and void" because the AO did not supply the copy of the information received from D.I. (Inv) based on which the assessment was reopened. The AO had received information suggesting that the assessee was a beneficiary of accommodation entries through non-genuine purchase bills from AVI Exports. The case was selected for reassessment under section 147 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, by issuing a notice under section 148 of the Act. However, the AO did not provide the assessee with the information that triggered the reassessment. 2. Treatment of Purchase from AVI Exports as Bogus and Unexplained Expenditure: The AO observed that the assessee, a trader in jewellery items, had allegedly received accommodation entries by way of non-genuine purchase bills amounting to ?1,05,150 from AVI Exports. Despite the assessee's submission of purchase details, payment through banking channels, and supporting documents, the AO deemed the transaction as merely an accommodation entry and not genuine. The AO's stance was based on the statement from the Investigation Wing that AVI Exports was an accommodation entry provider. The AO further noted that the assessee could not substantiate the movement of goods from Surat to Kolkata. Consequently, the AO added ?1,05,150 as unexplained expenditure. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [CIT(A)] upheld the AO's decision, noting that the proprietor of AVI Exports had admitted to providing accommodation entries in lieu of commission. This admission was part of a broader modus operandi involving several fictitious firms issuing bogus bills. The CIT(A) confirmed the addition based on the statements recorded during the search and seizure action. Tribunal's Findings: Upon hearing both parties, the Tribunal referred to a similar case adjudicated earlier, where the addition based on the statement of Shri Rajendra Jain was deleted. The Tribunal observed that the assessee maintained proper books of accounts, including stock registers, bills, and vouchers. The purchases were made against proper bills and were used in making jewellery, which was sold at a profit. The Tribunal noted that the revenue had accepted the sales made by the assessee, implying that the purchases must have occurred. The Tribunal found no evidence to support the revenue's claim that the assessee received cash back from AVI Exports in lieu of cheques issued. It was also noted that Shri Rajendra Jain had retracted his statement, claiming it was made under coercion. The Tribunal emphasized that a retracted statement could not be treated as reliable evidence. The Tribunal referenced the tax audit report, which confirmed the maintenance of regular books of accounts and detailed stock records. The assessee had provided all necessary details, including purchase bills, ledger accounts, and payment proofs. The Tribunal concluded that the revenue's allegation led to an impossible situation and lacked substantive evidence. Conclusion: The Tribunal allowed the appeal of the assessee, directing the deletion of the addition of ?1,05,150. The Tribunal's decision was consistent with previous rulings on similar issues, reinforcing the principle that retracted statements and unsupported allegations could not justify additions. Result: The appeal of the assessee was allowed, and the addition of ?1,05,150 was deleted. The order was pronounced in the open court on 3rd July 2020.
|
