9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (12) TMI 202X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... logical conclusion that the assessee might have purchased the goods from some other sources to avoid payment of Sales Tax / VAT, thereby, generating extra profit not disclosed to the Department and to regularize such purchases has obtained the accommodation bills. Entire purchase cannot be treated as income of the assessee, but, the profit element embedded therein can be considered for addition - nature of business carried on by the assessee, in our view, the decision of learned Commissioner (Appeals) in restricting the addition to 12.5% of the non genuine purchases is good enough to take care of leakage of revenue on account of suppression of profit. The aforesaid decision of learned Commissioner (Appeals) is also in consonance with the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the DGIT (Inv.), Pune, as well as Sales Tax Department, Government of Maharashtra, the Assessing Officer having found that the assessee is a beneficiary of accommodation bills issued by certain parties identified has hawala operators by the Sales Tax Department, re opened the assessments under section 147 of the Act. In the course of assessment proceedings, the Assessing Officer called upon the assessee to establish the genuineness of the purchases through supporting evidence. Further, to ascertain the genuineness of such purchases, the Assessing Officer conducted independent enquiry by issuing notices under section 133(6) of the Act. As alleged by the Assessing Officer, neither the assessee was unable to prove the genuineness of purchases ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ssee after hearing the learned Departmental Representative and on the basis of material available on record. 8. The learned Departmental Representative submitted, the assessee was unable to prove either the delivery of goods at its premises or day to day movement of stock in the absence of any stock register maintained by him. Further, she submitted, the notices issued under section 133(6) of the Act were returned back un served which prevented the Assessing Officer from ascertaining the genuineness of purchases. She submitted, learned Commissioner (Appeals) has also agreed with the Assessing Officer that the purchases are not genuine. That being the case, learned Commissioner (Appeals) was not justified in restricting the ad ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... unt of suppression of profit. Further, the aforesaid decision of learned Commissioner (Appeals) is also in consonance with the view expressed by the higher judicial authorities including the Tribunal in similar nature of cases. Insofar as the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in N.K. Proteins v/s DCIT, in Special Leave to Appeal C.C. no.769/2017, we fully agree with the learned Commissioner (Appeals) that the factual context in which the said decision was rendered is completely different from the facts of the present case, hence, is not applicable. Accordingly, we uphold the decision of learned Commissioner (Appeals) on the issue by dismissing the ground raised. 10. In the result, all the appeals are dismissed. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
