9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (2) TMI 98X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... goods. The sales tax Department in its enquiry have found the parties to be providing bogus accommodation entries. The assessing officer also issued notices to these parties at the addresses provided by the assessee. All these notices have returned unserved. Assessee has not been able to produce any of the parties. The assessing officer has noted that there is no cogent evidence of the provision of goods. Neither the assessee has been able to produce any confirmation from these parties. In such circumstances, there is no doubt that these parties are non-existent. Hence purchase bills from these non-existent the/bogus parties cannot be taken as cogent evidence of purchases, in light of the overwhelming evidence the revenue authorities cannot put upon blinkers and accept these purchases as genuine. - Decided against assessee. X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r issuing of an Ad- Interim Stay Order and an Absolute Stay Order and Paper-Book after filing of this appeal. 4. In this case on receipt of information from the DGIT (Investigation), Mumbai, it came to light that the assessee had made purchases from the following suspicious parties/hawala parties during the assessment year 2010-11, relevant to assessment year 2011-12, the details of which are as follows: Sr. No. Name of the hawala party Amount (Rs.) 1. DHRUV SALES CORPORATION 1,72,510 2. OM CORPORATION 7,985 3. SAGAR ENTERPRISES 44,708 4. MANIBHADRA TRADING CO 52,826 5. SEJAL ENTERPRISES 10,13,982 6. POLARIS SALES AGENCY PRIVATE LIMITED 11,08,259 7. ASHTVINAYAK SALES AGENCY 17,70,483 8. DONEAR TRADING PRIVATE LIMITED 82,545 9. JIGAN ENTERPRISES 1,721 10. CHIRAC CORPORATION 1,03,845 11. NIHSA ENTERPRISES 1,24,931 12. AIMMOL INDUSTRIES 2,13,914 13. LEOIMPEX 5,684 14. IMPEX TRAIDNG CO. 94,291 15. MAHAVIR CORPORATION 1,77,596 16. SHANTINATH CORPORATION 1,79,877 17. DEEP ENTERPRISES 4,16,211 18. BLUE NILE ENTERPRISES 34,02,554 19. CORAL TRADING CO 1,97,027 20. SHUBHLAXMI SALES CORPORATION 64,547 21. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ation about the appellant having made purchases from suspicious parties/ hawala parties; the information was specific and the details of the 28 such suspicious parties was provided. 4. I find that the case in any way is squarely covered by the jurisdictional High Court judgement in the case of NIKUNJ EXIMP which the assessing officer has also relied upon[107 DTR 69] it was held that the receipt of information that bills produced were not genuine can give rise to reasonable belief in the mind of the assessing officer that the income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment. In view of the clear ruling and mandate of the honourable jurisdictional High Court I find the objection non-maintainable. As regards merits: 5.1 It is yet another case in the long line of cases relating to hawala parties and the addition made by the AO is based on the following grounds: a. The assessee did not furnish any Ledger account confirmation from the said dealer/supplier. b. The assessee failed to produce the suppliers of Disputed purchases. c. Sales-tax Department had provided substantial evidence to put the purchases in doubt. The assessing officer proceeded to add 12.5% of such pur ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... for commission. These, accommodation entry providers, on receipt of cheques from parties against bogus bills for sale of material, later on withdrew cash from their bank accounts, which was returned to beneficiaries of bogus bills after deduction of their agreed commission. The Assessee was stated to be one of the beneficiaries of these bogus entries of sale of material from hawala entry operators in favour of the assessee wherein the assessee made alleged bogus purchases through these bogus bills issued by hawala entry providers in favour of the assessee. These dealers were surveyed by the Sales Tax Investigation Department whereby the directors of these dealers have admitted in a deposition vide statements/affidavit made before the Sales Tax Department that they were involved in. issuing bogus purchase bills without delivery of any material. There is a list of such parties wherein the assessee is stated to be beneficiary of bogus purchase bills. 10. From the above, I find that tangible and cogent incriminating material were received by the AO which clearly showed that the assessee was beneficiary of bogus purchase entries from bogus entry providers which formed the reason to bel ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the issue. Hence, I do not find any infirmity in the same. Accordingly, I uphold the order of the Ld. CIT(A) on the issue of reopening. Since, the issue has been decided on the basis of the Hon'ble Apex Court decision, the other case laws referred by assessee are not supporting the assessee's case. 12. As regards merits of addition, I find that credible and cogent information was received in this case by the assessing officer that certain accommodation entry provider/bogus suppliers were being used by certain parties to obtained bogus bills, assessee was found to have taken accommodation entry/bogus purchase bills during the concerned assessment year from different parties. Based upon this information assessment was reopened. The credibility of information relating to reopening has been confirmed by the learned CIT(A) and by ITAT as above. Furthermore it is noted that in such factual scenario Assessing Officer has made the necessary enquiry. The issue of notice to all the parties have returned unserved. Assessee has not been able to provide any confirmation from any of the party. Assessee has also not been able to produce any of the parties. The necessary evidence for transportati ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
