9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (4) TMI 1879X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... o that extent. - ITA 420/MUM/2018, 419/Mum/2018, 418/Mum/2018, 819/Mum/2018, 820/Mum/2018, 821/Mum/2018 - - - Dated:- 23-4-2019 - Saktijit Dey (Judicial Member) And Manoj Kumar Aggarwal (Accountant Member) Revenue by : Shri Ram Tiwari-Ld. DR Assessee by : Shri Vimal Punmiya-Ld.AR JUDGMENT Per Bench: - 1. The aforesaid cross-appeals for Assessment Years [AY] 2009-10, 2010-11 2011-12 contest separate orders of Ld. first appellate authority on common grounds of appeal viz. estimation of addition on account of alleged bogus purchases. Since the grievance of the assessee as well as revenue is common in all the appeals, facts are pari-materia the same and common grounds of appeal have been raised in the cross-appeal ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... eins Ltd. Vs. DCIT (2017-TIOL-23-SC-IT) dated 16.01.2017 wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court confirmed the decision of the High Court for addition of entire income on account of bogus purchases. 7. The appellant prays that the order of the CIT(A) on the above grounds be set aside and that of the Assessing Officer be restored. The grounds raised by the assessee read as under: - 1. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law the Ld CIT(A) erred in confirming the initiation of the reassessment proceeding under section 147. 2. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law the Ld CIT(A) failed to consider that reassessment proceeding cannot be initiated. a) No reassessment can be made just to make an enquiry or verif ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... se ground stands dismissed in limine. In the above background, we proceed to dispose-off the appeals as argued before us. 2.1 Facts leading to the cross appeals are that the assessee being resident individual stated to be engaged in trading of iron steel under proprietary concern namely M/s Sidhivinayak Enterprises was reassessed for impugned AY u/s 143(3) read with section 147 on 13/03/2015 by Ld. Income Tax Officer-25(2)(1), Mumbai [AO] wherein the income of the assessee was determined at ₹ 177.02 Lacs after sole addition on account of alleged bogus purchases for ₹ 170.71 Lacs as against returned income of ₹ 6.30 Lacs filed by the assessee on 12/09/2009 which was processed u/s 143(1). The addition of ₹ 170.71 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... uced stock movement chart to substantiate the purchases. 2.4 However, upon careful consideration of factual matrix, Ld. AO came to a conclusion that the assessee could not discharge the primary onus of proving the purchases with requisite documents and the books of accounts did not reflect the true and genuine picture of financial status of the assessee. Consequently, the books of accounts were rejected in terms of Section 145 of the Act. Finally, the additions against these purchases aggregating to ₹ 682.85 Lacs were estimated @25% which resulted into an addition of ₹ 170.71 Lacs in the hands of the assessee. 3. Aggrieved, the assessee agitated the same with partial success before Ld. CIT(A) vide impugned order dated 01/1 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... o 25%. 5. We have carefully heard the rival submissions and perused relevant material on record including judicial pronouncements cited before us. We are of the considered opinion that there could be no sale without actual purchase of material keeping in view the fact that the assessee was engaged in trading activities. The assessee was in possession of primary purchase documents and the accounts were subject to audit. The payments to the suppliers were through banking channels. The sales turnover has not been disputed by the revenue. The assessee demonstrated movement of stock before lower authorities. At the same time, the assessee failed to conclusively substantiate the delivery of material. Notices issued u/s 133(6) to all the suppli ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rtly allowed in terms of our above order. Cross Appeals for AYs 2010-11 2011-12 8. As narrated in the opening paragraph, the facts are pari-materia the same in these two Assessment Years. The grounds of cross-appeals are identical. Hence, our observations, conclusion and decision as given for AY 2009-10 shall mutatis-mutandis apply to these years also. 9. Resultantly, the revenues appeal for these two Assessment Years stands dismissed whereas the assessees appeal stands partly allowed in terms of our above order. Conclusion 10. All the three appeals of the revenue stands dismissed whereas the assessees appeals stands partly allowed. Order pronounced in the open court on 23rd April, 2019. - - TaxTMI - TMITax - Income ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
