9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (2) TMI 796X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... cting of addition of Rs. 2,38,32,673/- to Rs. 37,63,260/- u/s 69C of the Act as profit on the bogus purchases without giving any reasons of reduction of disallowance." 2. "On the fact and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld CIT(A) has grossly erred in not appreciating the fact that the notices under section 133(6) issued to parties from whom alleged bills were received were returned undelivered by the postal authorities and the assessee has also failed to produce the parties before the AO." 3. "On the fact and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld CIT (A) has erred in not appreciating that the assessee has not produced any cogent evidence to substantiate the fact that he had taken actual delivery of goods pur ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... me before the Settlement Commission. Aggrieved by the order of ld. CIT(A), the Revenue has filed the present appeal against sustaining the disallowance at Rs. 37,63,260/-. The assessee has filed a C.O. for deleting the entire disallowance. 3. We have heard ld. Departmental Representative (DR) for Revenue and ld. Authorized Representative (AR) for the assessee and perused the material available on record. The ld. DR for the Revenue supported the order of AO and would argue that in addition to the additional income offered by assessee before the Settlement Commission, certain percentage on account of bogus purchases may further be disallowed. The ld. DR argued that during the assessment proceedings the assessee has failed to prove the genuin ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he issues. The application of the assessee was accepted by Settlement Commission for consideration. However, the application of assessee was declared as invalid due to some technical reason and no settlement could be arrived. In support of C.O. ld. AR of assessee argued that ld. CIT(A) on the basis of declared additional income sustained the disallowance without giving any independent finding. It was argued that entire disallowance is liable to be deleted. 4. We have considered the rival contention of the parties and gone through the orders of authorities below. During the assessment proceeding, the AO asked the assessee to furnish the detail of the parties from the assessee has made the purchases. The assessee submitted the details to the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... esponsibility to trace all of them, the office of AO do not produce the party for cross-examination and the list of bogus/hawala dealer is not provided. The contention of the assessee was not accepted by AO holding that assessee could not produce delivery challan, Lorry receipt, mode of transportation, evidence of payment of Octroi and Stock Register etc. in support of genuineness of purchases. The AO further concluded that the affidavit, deposition and statement of hawala operators are enough to show that assessee did not purchase any goods or these entities are not carrying out any business. The Sales Tax Department has made a finding and uploads in their website, the name and entities, who were involved in giving bogus bills only, after ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nically correct on paper are in fact engaged in false billing for a fee/commission. The onus of proving the entire transactions to be genuine is definitely on the tax payer, when he is making the claim of purchase and especially in light of the doubt that has been raised by the enquiries conducted by the Sales Tax Department, the onus is even more on the tax payer to show that as far as he is concerned, he has discharged his tax related liabilities in an accurate manner. So therefore, while on one hand the AO may not had a clinching proof but the primary responsibility which is ensued on the tax payer has also not been discharged in terms of establishing the genuineness of the transaction. Merely filing copies of his own ledger accounts and ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of perse but the purchases were billed through bogus purchases. After examining the gross profit declared by the assessee, the ld. CIT(A) sustained the disallowance which was offered by assessee before the Settlement Commission and thus granted partial relief. We have seen that order of CIT(A) is reasoned one and does not require any further interference at our end. Hence, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed. C.O. No. 142/Mum/2016 7. The assessee has raised the ground for deleting the entire disallowance sustained by ld. CIT(A). As we have already observed that the order of ld. CIT(A) is reasoned one. The ld. CIT(A) sustained the disallowance to the extent of additional income offered by assessee on the matter of bogus purchases. The ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
