9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (5) TMI 1933X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ITAT, Jaipur Bench has already taken the decision of confirming the addition of 15% on unverifiable purchases in the similar line of cases, therefore, we concur with the findings of the ld. CIT(A). Thus the Ground No. 1 2 of the assessee are dismissed. Bogus purchases - AO initiated the proceedings u/s 147/148 - HELD THAT:- Assessee is engaged in the business of gold and diamond jewellery. The AO had information in his possession that the assessee had taken accommodation entries from Shri Praveen Kumar Jain group who himself admitted in his statement recorded u/s 132(4) of the Act that he is providing accommodation entries for commission. He was issuing bogus invoices to the needy parties on commission basis. The assessee had made purchases from two concerns namely M/s. Ankit Exports, Mumbai and M/s. Natasha Enterprises, Mumbai, controlled and managed by Shri Jain. AO had sufficient reason to believe that the income had escaped assessment as the assessee had not disclosed all the material facts fully and truly necessary for assessment. The earlier the assessment was made u/s 143(3) however, the fact about the bogus purchases from the concerns controlled by Shri Jain was ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ch. Thus the assessee has raised in total three grounds of appeal which are being adjudicated upon hereunder:- 2.1 Apropos Ground No. 1 and 2 of the assessee, the facts as emerges from the order of the ld. CIT(A) are as under:- 3.2.2 Determination (i) I have carefully perused the submissions of the appellant and the assessment order. It is evident from the assessment order that the AO made enquiries from the two concerns under consideration through issue of letters at the address provided by the appellant at Mumbai and Jaipur, but the letter were received back as unserved . During assessment proceeding, the AO required the appellant to produce the two parties under consideration alongwith the books of accounts in order to prove the genuineness of the transactions but no compliance was made. The AO has discussed the issue in detail in the assessment order and concluded that:- - The primary onus is on the assessee to establish the genuineness of the purchases made or claimed by it. - Since the primary facts are in the knowledge of the assessee, it is his duty to prove the correct address or contract modes of the alleged supplier. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... lso relied on the decision dated 29-01-2018 of ITAT Jaipur Bench in ITA No. 197/JP/2016 for the Assessment Year 2007-08 in the case of Vijay Kedia (HUF) vs ACIT and ITA No.248/JP/2016 in the case of ACIT vs M/s. Vijay Kedia (HUF). 2.3 We have heard the rival contentions and perused the materials available on record. The assessee had shown purchases of ₹ 2,09,45,850/- from two concerns namely M/s. Ankit Exports (₹ 59,45,850/-) and M/s. Natasha Enterprises (₹ 1,50,00,000/-), Mumbai. These purchases were from the concerns controlled by Shri Praveen Jain who is the key persons of these companies engaged in providing entries for bogus purchases. During the course of search at the premises of Shri Jain, many incriminating documents were found and seized. Statements of various key persons including Shri Praveen Jain were recorded u/s 132(4) of the Act wherein it has been established that the group was indulged in providing accommodation entries for bogus purchase and sale through these concerns. The concerns controlled were found non-existing at the given addresses and also found non-genuine. Shri Praveen Jain has also admitted this fact in his sworn statements ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... king as an entry operator in the statement recorded on oath u/s 132(4) of the Act. It was deposed by Shri Praveen Kumar Jain (Jain) that he was issuing bogus invoices to the needy parties on commission basis. The appellant had also claimed to make purchases amounting to ₹ 2,09,45,850/- from the two concerns i.e. M/s. Ankit Exports and M/s. Natasha Enterprises, controlled and manager by Shri Jain. It is therefore, held that the AO has reason to believe that the income had escaped assessment as the appellant had not disclosed all the material facts fully and truly necessary for the assessment. (iii) It may be mentioned that in the cae of Kamalchadn Nathmal Lunia vs ITO (2014) 40 CCH 0199 Ahd. Trib, it was held by Hon'ble ITAT that:- The assessee in individual capacity had filed the Income Tax Return for ₹ 88,664/- on 13th of Feb. 2006, which was processed u/s 143(1) of the I.T. Act. The proviso prescribes that no action should be taken u/s 147 after the expiry of four years from the end of relevant Assessment Year, unless any income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment order for such Assessment Year by reason of the failure on the part of the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ormation in his possession that the assessee had taken accommodation entries from Shri Praveen Kumar Jain group who himself admitted in his statement recorded u/s 132(4) of the Act that he is providing accommodation entries for commission. He was issuing bogus invoices to the needy parties on commission basis. The assessee had made purchases amounting to ₹ 2,09,45,850/- from two concerns namely M/s. Ankit Exports, Mumbai and M/s. Natasha Enterprises, Mumbai, controlled and managed by Shri Jain. Thus the AO had sufficient reason to believe that the income had escaped assessment as the assessee had not disclosed all the material facts fully and truly necessary for assessment. The earlier the assessment was made u/s 143(3) of the Act, however, the fact about the bogus purchases from the concerns controlled by Shri Jain was not disclosed by the assessee during assessment proceeding. The fresh information was received by the AO and the AO initiated the proceedings u/s 147/148 of the Act. Thus, it is not the case of change of opinion as the assessment was reopened on the basis of fresh information received with regard to bogus purchases. The assessee has not disclosed truly and ful ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
