9911796707
TMI Blog2021 (8) TMI 556X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... st the order of Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) -29, Mumbai (in short the CIT(A)) dated 18/03/2019 common for assessment years 2010-11 and 2011-12. Since, the facts germane to both the appeals and the grounds of appeal are similar these appeals are taken up together for adjudication and are decided by this common order. 2. The assessee in appeals has assailed the addition of ₹ 30,80,585/- in assessment year 2010-11 and ₹ 31,75,554/- in assessment year 2011-12 on account of alleged bogus purchases. 3. The brief facts of the case as emanating from records are: The assessee is a dealer and stockist of tools and alloy. The assessment in the case of assessee for assessment years 2010-11 and 2011-12 were reopened on the ba ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... mation @12.5% was merely or presumption surmises which can never sustain as per several judicial pronouncements. d. My business of last more than 5 years are of same nature, same material viz. Tools, Steel and Alloy steel with almost same traders and or their associates sister concerns with more or less same margin of profit with no significant change in market condition hence estimation if at all to be adopted it should be based on last 3 years average G P margin as submitted herewith. e. Merely relying on statement of creditors before VAT authority without knowing their objective of skin saving exercise not making independent inquiry viz. Bank statements, PAN, IT records etc leads to incorrect assessment of income. f. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ee has failed to prove genuineness of purchases and the authenticity of the dealers in both the impugned assessment years. The notices sent to the dealers under section 133(6) of the Act on the addresses furnished by the assessee by the Assessing Officer were received back unserved by the postal authorities with the remark left or not known . No confirmations from the dealers were filed by the assessee. Further, the assessee has failed to substantiate trail of goods. Payments made through cheque/banking channels are not sacrosanct and does not prove authenticity of transactions. Since, the Revenue has accepted the sales declared by the assessee, it is only the profit element embedded in such bogus transactions that has to be brought to tax ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
