9911796707
TMI Blog2022 (6) TMI 67X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... to establish the same. From the reading of the assessment order, it is clear that the assessee was given opportunity to prove genuineness of the transaction even in the original assessment proceedings, which were completed on 24.12.2010. Further, the assessee pleaded before this Tribunal in the first round of appeal that he could not produce three parties as well as evidences before the AO. For this reason only, Co-ordinate Bench of this Tribunal had set aside the matter back to the file of the AO for one more opportunity. Now, the assessee simply claims that since the transactions were of more than ten years old, it could not produce three parties before the AO. Assessee has literally wasted precious time of the AO by once again issuing notices and summons to the third parties and at the end of the proceedings, the assessee expressed inability to prove before the AO the genuineness of the transactions. Thus, both the AO and the CIT(A) have given clear cut finding that the assessee could not able to prove the purchases as genuine, and therefore, grounds of appeal raised by the assessee in the written submissions are hereby rejected, and the appeal filed by the assessee are he ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 20.9.2018 again sought for an adjournment for the reason that the assessee is trying to contact these parties. Since the matter is very old it may take some time to secure their presence before the AO. Considering the request, the case was adjourned to 26.9.2018. Again the assessee vide letter dated 25.9.2018 requested further time, and to ensure presence of thee parties along with details, documents till 1.10.2018. However, the assessee vide his letter dated 29.9.2018 has given same written explanation without any evidence or production of three parties before the AO. After considering the above reply, the Ld. AO passed a detailed order which is as follow: 5.6. The reply of the assessee has been carefully considered hut there is no force found in the same. As during the course of original assessment, the assessee was requested to furnish the complete details of suppliers/brokers. On the list given by the assessee, notice u/s. 133(6) of the I.T. Act were issued on 20.10.2010 requiring them to give certain information. At that time also the speed post were returned un-served by the postal authorities with following remarks: Sr. No. Name ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rs of income by the assessee company. 3. Aggrieved against this order, the assessee filed an appeal before the Ld. CIT(A)-8, Ahmedabad. In the course of appellate proceedings, the assessee filed written submissions before the Ld. CIT(A) stating that the assessee was not able to produce three brokers due to the fact that more than ten years had passed when the impugned transactions were carried out. The Ld. CIT(A) held that in the original assessment order dated 24.12.2010 wherein purchase total amounting to Rs. 2,06,51,426/- which included purchase of Rs. 29,97,477/- which were found to be bogus as the assessee could not prove genuineness of the same. However, the matter reached the ITAT, the Tribunal has set aside the issue to the file of the AO with clear cut direction to examine three brokers mentioned above. Therefore, now the assessee cannot take plea that the matter is ten years old and the assessee could not prove the genuineness of the purchase as disallowed in the original assessment order. The assessee had taken alternative plea that if at all addition is to be made entire purchase of Rs. 29,97,477/- cannot be disallowed and only GP at the rate of 3.15% only is to be ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he written arguments are as follows: i) Ground No. 1 This ground pertains to the action of the AO in treating genuine purchases of Rs. 29,97,477/- as unproved/bogus; ii) Ground No. 2: This ground pertains to treating the entire purchases of Rs. 29,97,477/- as bogus and adding the same as income; iii) Ground No. 3 : This ground pertains to the reduction from the sales in respect of the purchases as mentioned in ground No. 1 and 2. 5. While going through the written arguments, the submissions are nothing by repetition of the same as filed before the Ld. CIT(A) and nothing new submissions or documents or evidence produced before this Tribunal. The Ld. DR, Shri S.S. Shukla submitted the following submissions as against each ground of appeal: Ground No. 1 1.4 It is pertinent to mention that even during the course of original assessment proceedings in the first round, these parties were not verifiable and their address were found to be bogus. Even then, the appellant had failed to produce these parties. 1.5 It was in light of these facts and circumstances that the Hon'ble ITAT had given specific directions to the AO for examining these three parties. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... irmity. In the present appeal Revenue's case is suppression of profits in. the hands of the appellant by way of introducing bogus claims of expenditure pertaining to the three brokers that were found to be practically nonexistent. Thus, the core allegation is that goods corresponding to the three alleged purchases never ever came to the business of the appellant. Instead, these transactions are mere paper entries in order to deflate the actual profits. Accordingly, there is no quantitative implication at all on the sales. That being so, the question of reducing sales commensurate to this disallowance does not arise. In other words, the impugned disallowance of bogus purchases only restores assessee's trading results to what they actually were before this bogus claim. 3.3 Without prejudice to the above, as rightly observed by the Ld. CIT(A) in Para 6 of his order at Page No. 13, even otherwise the appellant has not been able to furnish any quantitative and party-wise tally between the impugned purchases and corresponding sales. Unless there is an irrefutable factual demonstration by the appellant that the impugned purchases treated as bogus were, in fact, included in th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
