9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (9) TMI 1581X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 85/Mum/2017 - - - Dated:- 26-9-2017 - SHRI R.C.SHARMA, AM For The Assessee : Shri Bhupendra Shah For The Revenue : Shri Ram Tiwari ORDER PER R.C.SHARMA (A.M): These are the appeals filed by the assessee against the order of CIT(A)-36, Mumbai dated 30/01/2017 for the A.Y.2009-10, 2010-11 and 2011-12 in the matter of order passed u/s. 143(3) r.w.s. 147 of the IT Act. 2. Common grievance of assessee in all the years pertains to upholding the addition by CIT(A) applying profit rate of 12.5% on the bogus purchases. 3. The facts and circumstances in all the three years under consideration are same, I therefore heard all the appeals together and now deciding the same through this consolidated order. 4. The ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 6 GLOBAL TRADE IMPEX 27400628967V 16,13,306 37,58,941 5. Subsequently, the case of the assessee was reopened by issuance of notice u/s 148 of the Act on 19.03.2015. In response, the assessee asked AO to consider return already filed on 26.09.2009 in response to above notice. The assessment order u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 147 of the Act was passed on 29.02.2016 by assessing total income at ₹ 6,80,730/-. 6. During the course of reassessment proceedings, the assessee was asked by the AO to show cause as to why the amount of ₹ 37,58,941/- should not be treated as unexplained expenditure u/s 69C of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . Reliance was placed on C. Vasantlal Co. vs. CIT (1962) 45 ITR 206 (SC), Chaturbhuj Panauj AIR 1969 (SC) and SumatiDayal Vs. CIT (1905) 2014 ITR 801 (SC). One has to consider the totality of facts, surrounding circumstances and human probability for arriving at a conclusion as held in CIT Vs. Durga Prasad 82 ITR 540 (SC) and SumatiDayal Vs. CIT 214 ITR 801 (SC). (vii) that the purchase from hawala operators falls within the ambit of the term colourable devices and the Supreme Court observed in the case of McDowell and Co. Ltd. vs. CTO 154 ITR 148 that Tax planning may be legitimate provided it is within the framework of law. Colourable devices cannot be part of tax planning and it is wrong to encourage or entertain the belief that ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... fit element embedded in the bogus purchase transactions @12.50% of the amount of the total bogus purchase bills of ₹ 37,58,941/- and added in assessee s income was disallowed by the AO. Accordingly, an amount of ₹ 4,69,868/- was treated as unexplained expenditure within the meaning of section 69C of the act and deemed to be income of the assessee. 8. By the impugned order, CIT(A) confirmed the order of the AO against which assessee is in further appeal before us. 9. It was argued by learned AR that The Ld. Assessing officer erred in making the addition of ₹ 4,69,868/- on account profit element embedded in these bogus purchase transactions is held to be 12.50% of amount of alleged bogus purchases of ₹ 37,58,941/ ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Account, copy of Vat Audit Report. b. List of Debtors, Creditors, Purchase party and sales party along with Tin Numbers. c. Copy of Bank Statements and Address Details of purchase parties to whom department called as non - genuine dealers. d. It was submitted-that information from Sales tax department stating that these purchases are not genuine, is contrary to the facts of the present case. The Appellant specifically refuted this allegation, by producing purchase bills, delivery challans, supplier's ledger accounts, transportation bills, one to one correlation of purchases made and sales thereof, and information regarding purchase and payment made. e. The Appellant filed the copy of bank statement to prove that the payment ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... from the suppliers. The additions have been made merely on the report of the Sales Tax Department but at the same time it cannot be said that purchases are bogus. 14. On the other hand it was submitted by learned DR that bogus purchase was informed to the AO and he had made full independent enquiry and found that suppliers were not existing, therefore, he has very reasonably estimated profit of 12.5% on such bogus purchases. 15. I have considered rival contentions and carefully gone through the orders of the authorities below. From the record, I found that there was information to the AO with regard to the bogus purchases having been made by the assessee. The AO has also made an independent enquiry to find out the genuineness of the p ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
