9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (9) TMI 1888X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ring income of F17,00,060/-, for assessment year 2010-2011 declaring income of F25,83,966/- and for assessment year 2011-12 declaring income of F15,48,695/-. These returns were originally processed u/s.143(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short ''the Act''). However, thereafter the assessments for the impugned assessment years were reopened citing a reason that some of the purchases claimed by the assessee were bogus. Though the assessee objected to the reopening, it seems such objections were rejected. Ld. Assessing Officer based on a report forwarded by DGIT (Investigation, Mumbai) which in turn had it's moorings on certain details obtained from Maharashtra VAT Department, required the assessee to explain why the following purchases claimed by it should not be considered bogus. Sl.No Hawala name Hawala TIN Hawala Pan Particulars of transactions 08-09 Amount 09-10 Amount 10-11 Amount 1 Naman enterprises 27450524228V AQEPK5024G 20,24,880 2 Krish corporatio n27890606533V AWAPS3678L 21,72,560 3 Sagar enterprises 27920363580V ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... (Appeals) was that sales having not been disbelieved or questioned, purchases alone could not have been ignored. Apart from the merits of the disallowances, assessee also assailed the reopening done for these assessment years. For assessment year 2010-2011, assessee had one other ground stating that actual purchase amount from M/s.Amee enterprises was F35,50,178/- and not F3,55,01,784/-. 5. However, ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) was not fully impressed by the above arguments. According to him, the original assessments having been done u/s.143(1) of the Act, reopening done for the impugned assessment years were in accordance with law. On the question of purchase being considered bogus, conclusion of the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) was that these were only accommodation entries. According to him, the fact of making payments through account payee cheques, would not be sufficient to claim the transactions as genuine. Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), was of the opinion that assessee could not produce necessary evidence for substantiating the purchases. 6. Vis-à-vis the claim of the assessee that sales also should be reduced if purchases were d ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... about the goods purchased and mode of transportation. Notices u/s.133(6) of the Act were all returned unserved. Thus, according to him, purchases were bogus. As per the ld. Departmental Representative, assessee was bringing in his unaccounted money as sales and the disallowances were therefore justified. 9. We have considered the rival contentions and perused the orders of the authorities below. It is not disputed that assessee had produced bills for purchases. However, these purchases were disbelieved for a reason that notices issued u/s.133(6) of the Act to these parties were returned unserved. Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) also states that assessee had failed to bring in sufficient evidence to prove the purchases. Nevertheless what we find from the assessment orders for the impugned assessment years is that ld. Assessing Officer had not found any defects in the books of accounts produced by the assessee, nor rejected it. Assessments were completed u/s.143(3) of the Act after verifying the books of accounts produced by the assessee. In the tax Audit report for the impugned assessment years filed by the assessee in Form 3CD, quantitative details have been given at Sl. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the address of all the vendors who supplied goods to him. There is nothing on record to substantiate the inference drawn by the lower authorities that part of the sales accounted by the assessee was only to bring in his unaccounted income to the main stream. The existence of unaccounted income was not evidenced by any record. In a similar situation where a part of the purchases were disbelieved, the Mumbai Bench of the Tribunal in the case of M/s. Imperial Imp & Exp (supra) had held as under at para 5 & 6 of its orders. ''5. On the other hand, the Ld. Departmental Representative supported the orders of the authorities below by pointing out that the addition has been made on account of the enquiries conducted by the Sales Tax Department of the Government of Maharashtra and no effort has been made by the assessee to controvert such information. 6. We have carefully considered the rival submissions. The entire discussion in the assessment order reveals that purchases from four parties namely Dhruv sales Corporation - Rs. 13,67,640/-; Subhlaxmi Sales Corp. - Rs. 20,20,800/-; Dharshan Sales Corporation Rs. 9,64,656/-; and Paras (India)- Rs. 33,98,400, totalling to Rs. 77,51,496/- ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
