9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (5) TMI 112X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Enterprises also was verified by the Assessing Officer. It was noted the amount that was received from the assessee was withdrawn immediately by cash. Though the goods were sold in beginning of the financial year by SR Enterprises no payment was made by the assessee during the entire financial year. Some payments were made in the subsequent year to M/s SR Enterprises and as mentioned earlier the beneficiaries of these payments could not verified. The findings of the Income Tax authorities have clearly established that so called purchases made by the assessee from M/s SR Enterprises are nothing but bogus transactions, just to inflate the expenses. - Decided against the assessee. Applicability of revised monetary limits for filing appeal to Tribunal at ₹ 4 Lacs by revenue - In view of the order of the Tribunal in the case of Sushila Saraogi [2014 (11) TMI 294 - ITAT KOLKATA] which have elaborately considered the identical issue, we hold that instruction No. 5/2014 issued by the CBDT on 10.7.2014 is applicable to the pending appeals. In the instant case, the tax effect being below ₹ 4 lacs, without going into the issue on merit, we dismiss the appeal of the revenue in l ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of S.R. Enterprises is verifiable from the registration certificate granted by the various tax authorities. 4. The AO rejected the contentions raised by the assessee. The AO held that assessee had claimed nil packing expenses during the previous financial year while exporting goods worth 32,99,000. It was stated by the AO that the total export of BOPP film was ₹ 17,83,763/-, and assessee had claimed packing expenses to the tune of ₹ 67,21,611/-. The Assessing Officer after analyzing the invoices submitted by the seller of the packing material, namely, S.R. Enterprises opined that the assessee s company was a major buyer from the M/s SR Enterprises and still the assessee was unable to produce the party. According to the AO, the contention of the assessee that M/s Enterprises had sales tax no. did not make the transaction genuine, particularly when the assessee was specifically confronted with the adverse evidences gathered by the Department. The ld.AO further drew an inference that M/s SR Enterprises had not been paid during the year even though purchases were made as early as 2nd April, 2004 (beginning of the financial year). Accordingly, the AO disallowed the expe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ugned order clearly suggests that there was a close connection between the assessee and M/s SR Enterprises. Out of the 36 bills raised by M/s SR Enterprises, 20 of them pertained to the assessee. The goods were sold on credit. Assuming for a moment, that there was no connection between the assessee and M/s SR Enterprises, goods would not have been sold on credit even on the 2nd April of the financial year. No payment was made by the assessee during the entire financial year. How can there be no connection between the two parties, where goods are sold on credit and remain outstanding for more than 12 months? Further, some payments were made by the assessee in subsequent years to M/s SR Enterprises. It cannot be appreciated that who took the payments. It cannot also be ascertained that who approached the assessee for the said payments. It is unbelievable that the assessee was not in contact with M/s SR Enterprises, in case it existed. To my mind, the proprietorship concern did not exist, not withstanding the sales tax number that it had. The existence of the sales tax number does not have a bearing on the case considering the fact that sustained investigations by the Income Tax autho ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... SR Enterprises also was verified by the Assessing Officer. It was noted the amount that was received from the assessee was withdrawn immediately by cash. Though the goods were sold in beginning of the financial year by SR Enterprises no payment was made by the assessee during the entire financial year. Some payments were made in the subsequent year to M/s SR Enterprises and as mentioned earlier the beneficiaries of these payments could not verified. The findings of the Income Tax authorities have clearly established that so called purchases made by the assessee from M/s SR Enterprises are nothing but bogus transactions, just to inflate the expenses. These findings of the lower authorities have not been dispelled by the assessee by placing on record any material/evidence. Therefore, we confirm the orders of the Income Tax Authorities and reject the grounds raised by the assessee. 8. Revenue s appeal ITA No. 3953/Del/2011 In revenue s appeal, the solitary issue that is raised is whether the CIT(A) is justified in deleting the addition made u/s 68 of the Act amounting to ₹ 12,00,000/-. 9. At the very outset the Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that the tax effect in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
