9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (4) TMI 347X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... confirmations on record in support of the purchases. Both the lower authorities doubt creditworthiness thereof without there being any rebut in all evidence except Maharastra VAT authorities information. The alleged hawala dealers have nowhere been allowed to be cross examined at any staged of the proceedings. Thus to conclude in these facts and circumstances that the CIT(A) has erred in confirming the impugned addition of bogus purchases, See Hiralal Chunilal Jain vs. ITO [2016 (1) TMI 1089 - ITAT MUMBAI], ACIT vs. Ramila P. Shah [2015 (3) TMI 1116 - ITAT MUMBAI] and DCIT vs. Rajiv Jee Kalathil (2014 (8) TMI 807 - ITAT MUMBAI) - Decided in favour of assessee - ITA Nos. 1877 to 1879/Ahd/2015 - - - Dated:- 8-3-2016 - Shri N.K. Billaiya, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... lead in other words indicated issuance of goods sale invoices without any actual involvement thereof. The assessee s purchases in question as beneficiary of this bogus billing in the names of his proprietary concern M/s. S.N. F. Engineering Co. involved five billing instances of different amounts aggregating to the impugned sums of ₹ 52,93,515/-. This culminated in issuance of section 148 notice dated 23-04-2013. The assessee appears to have strongly contested the same by producing the relevant evidence of having executed sale of purchased goods sought to be treated as bogus, books of accounts, confirmation and proof of payments made. It further highlighted that the relevant sales had already been accepted/assessed. The Assessing Off ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... as noticed that appellant was one of the beneficiary of bogus billing and had obtained bogus bills for purchase amounting to ₹ 52,93,515/- from the parties involved. Appellant failed to produce before the AO and AO proceeded to make the addition as proposed by him. On the other hand appellant contended during the appellate proceedings it is not a manufacturer and do not require any rawmaterial in business. The entire Sales and Purchases are in respect of Finished Goods and it a regular trade practice of business to purchase the goods from various Dealers against the verbal Sale- Order of goods and the Appellant is not holding the stock of goods. Consequently, the delivery of goods sold is given directly from the godown of vendor ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... passed by the VAT department. Appellant has totally failed to substantiate its claim made before me during the appellate proceedings with evidences which were called for. Therefor the claim of the appellant that copy of detailed ledger accounts of all the parties whom purchases /sales have been made, as well as copy of Bank statements reflecting payment made for purchases furnished, relevant bill/vouchers LR Receipts, Vouchers, Gate-Pass, Delivery Challan and vouchers, detailed chart showing sales effected of the goods purchased from the alleged parties cannot be accepted. These claim of the appellant has already been refuted by the AO in the assessment order which has already been reproduced above in para.4.1 of the appellate order, howev ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ₹ 6,000/- and AO proved that appellant had not purchased any goods but entertained with tax invoice only without involvement of goods. _ Explanation of the appellant was also not accepted as appellant had also not produced the details regarding transportation of goods like gate pass, transportation receipt or laribhada or any other mode receipt and labour expenses proof for carrying out such goods from the place of seller to place of purchaser located out of Mumbai. In such circumstances, action of the AO in making the addition of ₹ 52,93,515/- as bogus purchases is held justified and the addition made is hereby confirmed. The relevant grounds of appeal are hereby rejected. 5. We have rival contentions. Both l ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
