9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (4) TMI 195X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 010-11 and 2011-12 respectively. Since the facts and issues involved in these four cross appeals are common, therefore, all the four cross appeals were heard together and are being disposed of by this composite order. 2. Since the similar grounds raised by the assessee as well as by Revenue in their respective cross appeals, therefore, the grounds raised by the assessee in ITA No.2222/PUN/2016 and by the Revenue in ITA No.2331/PUN/2016 are extracted hereunder for the sake of brevity :- ITA No.2222/PUN/2016 (By Assessee): 1] The learned CIT(A) erred in confirming disallowance @ 20% amounting to ₹ 33,93,705/- out of the total purchases made by the appellant company of ₹ 1,69,68,524/- from M/s. Ajanta Enterprises on the ground that the said purchases were made from suspicious dealer and hence, disallowance to the extent of 20% on the basis of average gross profit declared by the appellant company was reasonable. 2] The learned CIT(A) failed to appreciate that the purchases made by the appellant company from M/s. Ajanta Enterprises were genuine and it had submitted all the documentary evidences to establish receipt and consumption of the material and t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... products, other poultry products, refined oil and de-oiled cake. The assessee filed the return of income declaring total income of ₹ 77,28,58,240/- for the assessment 2010-11 and ₹ 101,79,52,613/- for the assessment year 2011-12 respectively. Based on the information received from the Sales Tax Department, Maharashtra Government, the Assessing Officer found that the assessee was a beneficiary of the bogus purchases bills from the entry operators. As per the said information, the assessee was a beneficiary of the bills issued by M/s. Ajanta Enterprises amounting to ₹ 1,69,68,524/- for the assessment year 2010-11 and ₹ 51,89,957/- for the assessment year 2011-12 respectively. The assessee was asked to explain the same by issue of show-cause notice. As the assessee did not reply to the said show-cause notice, the Assessing Officer finalized the assessment order u/s 143(3) of the Act and added the said addition of ₹ 1,69,68,524/- for the assessment year 2010-11 and ₹ 51,89,957/- for the assessment year 2011-12 on account of bogus purchases to the returned income of the assessee respectively. Aggrieved with the said decision of the Assessing Officer, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... by the Assessing Officer before making addition, then there is no warrant in making aforesaid addition in the hands of assessee merely on the basis of so called list of hawala dealers. There are other cases, where the Assessing Officer had received the statement of the persons who were hawala dealers and who had admitted to have just issued bills of sale without delivery of goods. In such circumstances, there is evidence against the respective assessee that where the seller of the goods, has admitted not to have entered into real transaction of sale of goods. Against such non-transaction, there can be no delivery of goods, then it is case of passing of bills of sale and purchases, against which no VAT has been paid. Such bogus purchases are then to be added in the hands of assessee. Where the Assessing Officer had confronted the assessee with the information received, supplied copies of statements and where the persons have not been traced and no confirmation has been filed by the assessee in this regard, then the addition is to be made in the hands of assessee on account of such bogus purchases. In the facts and circumstances of some cases, the goods have been transferred by such ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r section 133(6) of the Act, where hawala dealer was not traceable and in the absence of the assessee failing to file any documentary evidence of delivery of goods, addition is to be upheld in the hands of assessee on account of such bogus purchases. IV. T he next instance is the case of goods which have been admittedly swohldo biyn thteu rhna whaalda dmeaalienrt aainnde dh aqs ubaenetni traetciveeiv edde btay iltsh e aansds esasleseo, cevoindternolc ed oeft aiitlss moof vecmonesnutm ip.et.i otnra nofs ptohreta tsiaoind dmetaatielsr iaaln do rq ueaxlaitcyt details of sale of the same consignment through same transporter directly to the party, then the total purchases the hands of assessee. However, since the p ucracnhnaoste bs ea arde dmeda dine fhraonmd st hoef garsesye smseaer.k eTt,h es oTmreib eusntaiml ainti oMn/ sn. eCehdest aton bEen tmerapdrei siens tVhse. eAsCtIiTm a(stiunpgr ath) eh saasm ael r@e a1d0y% hofe ltdh et ahlalte gtehde haawddailtai opnu rbceh amseasd, eo vbeyr and above the GP shown by the respective assessee. V. Another set of cases where the statements recorded by the Sales Tax Department have been handed over to the assessee and the copies of sa ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on by way of estimation is to be made in the hands of the assessee at the rate of 10% of the alleged bogus purchases in both the assessment years uniformly. This is over and above the net profit shown by the assessee in both the assessment years. Accordingly, the grounds raised by the assessee are partly allowed. 11. In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed. ITA Nos.2331 2332/PUN/2016 (By Revenue) 12. In these two appeals of the Revenue, the issues relate to the relief granted by the CIT(A). However, they relate to the bogus purchase. The said issues stand adjudicated by us in the earlier paragraphs of this order vide appeals in ITA Nos.2222 2223/PUN/2016 for the assessment years 2010-11 2011-12. The issues are decided partly in favour of the assessee. Therefore, the adjudication of the grounds raised by the Revenue in both the cross appeals becomes an academic exercise. Thus, the grounds raised by the Revenue are dismissed as an academic. 13. In the result, the cross appeals of the Revenue are dismissed. 14. To sum up, the appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed and the cross appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
