PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, SURAT 1 vs. JUGAL KISHOR MAHENDRA BIYANI

PDF · subscribers

TAXAP/1152/2018HC GujaratGJHC24046836201824 September 2018Author: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE AKIL KURESHI,HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE B.N. KARIA4 pages

AI SummaryDismissed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court dismissed the Revenue's appeal, following its earlier decision in a similar case involving the same assessee. Regarding the opening stock (Question A), the Court noted that the CIT(A) and the Tribunal had concurrently held on facts that the assessee's declaration was genuine. Evidence included a certificate from the Superintendent of Central Excise, Surat, confirming the stock position as of March 31, 2003, and declarations made to both Income Tax and Central Excise authorities. The stock was subsequently sold with proper declarations and CENVAT credit claims. The Court found no question of law arose as the issue was based on appreciation of record. For bogus creditors (Questions B and C), the Tribunal confirmed the CIT(A)'s view, finding sufficient evidence of genuineness and noting that adding these purchases would distort the gross profit rate. The Court again found the issues to be based on appreciation of record with no question of law arising. For disallowance of expenses (Question D), the Court deemed the question factual, involving a small amount. Therefore, all issues were decided in favour of the assessee based on concurrent findings of fact by the lower appellate authorities.

What were the facts?

The Revenue is in appeal against an Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) order dated February 14, 2018. The appeal concerns assessment year(s) not explicitly stated but implied to be related to the introduction of CENVAT provisions in the textile industry. The assessee is Jugal Kishor Mahendra Biyani, and the Revenue is the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Surat 1. The ITAT had deleted additions made by the Assessing Officer (AO) concerning bogus opening stock of Rs. 6,51,00,020, bogus credits from M/s. Khushi of Rs. 1,21,34,503, and bogus credits from M/s. Sanket Export of Rs. 1,83,89,471. The ITAT also confirmed the deletion of Rs. 93,673 out of a total disallowance of various expenses of Rs. 1,87,346. The High Court notes that a similar appeal (Tax Appeal No. 1000 of 2018) involving the same assessee and similar questions was dismissed on August 14, 2018.

What were the issues?

The Tribunal had to decide the following questions of law: 1. Whether the ITAT was justified in deleting the addition of Rs. 6,51,00,020 on account of bogus opening stock, despite the assessee allegedly manipulating the stock and reporting bogus opening stock in the books of account and Return of Income (ROI)? 2. Whether the ITAT was justified in deleting the addition of Rs. 1,21,34,503 on account of bogus credits from M/s. Khushi, despite the assessee failing to prove the genuineness of the creditors despite ample opportunities? 3. Whether the ITAT was justified in deleting the addition of Rs. 1,83,89,471 on account of bogus credits from M/s. Sanket Export, despite the assessee failing to prove the genuineness of the creditors for new purchases despite ample opportunities? 4. Whether the ITAT was justified in confirming the deletion made by the CIT(A) of Rs. 93,673 out of a disallowance of various expenses of Rs. 1,87,346, despite the assessee failing to prove that the expenses incurred were wholly for business purposes? Assessee's Contentions: Not recorded. Revenue's Contentions: The Revenue argued that the ITAT was not justified in deleting the additions related to bogus opening stock, bogus credits from M/s. Khushi, and M/s. Sanket Export, and in confirming the deletion of a portion of disallowed expenses, as the assessee failed to prove the genuineness of the stock, creditors, and expenses.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Not explicitly mentioned in the provided text.

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances

C/TAXAP/1152/2018 ORDER IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD R/TAX APPEAL NO. 1152 of 2018 ========================================================== PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, SURAT 1 Versus JUGAL KISHOR MAHENDRA BIYANI ========================================================== Appearance: MR.NIKUNT K. RAVAL, ADVOCATE for MRS KALPANAK RAVAL(1046) for the PETITIONER(s) No. 1 for the RESPONDENT(s) No. 1 ========================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE AKIL KURESHI and HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE B.N. KARIA Date : 24/09/2018

ORAL ORDER (PER : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE AKIL KURESHI)

Revenue is in appeal against the judgment of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal dated 14.02.2018 raising following questions for our consideration: “[A] Whether on the facts and circumstance of the case and in law, the Hon'ble ITAT was justified in deleting the addition made on account

of bogus

opening

stock Rs.6,51,00,020/ despite the fact that assessee had manipulated the stock and bogus opening stock was reported in the books of account and in ROI ? [B] Whether on the facts and circumstance of the case and in law, the Hon'ble ITAT was justified in deleting the addition made on account of bogus credits of M/s.Khushi of Rs.1,21,34,503/ despite the fact that assessee failed to prove the genuineness of the creditors in spite of being provided with ample opportunities ? C/TAXAP/1152/2018 ORDER [C] Whether on the facts and circumstance of the case and in law, the Hon'ble ITAT was justified in deleting the addition made on account of bogus credits of M/s. Sanket Export of Rs.1,83,89,471/ despite the fact that assessee failed to prove the genuineness of the creditors in respect of new purchase in spite of being provided with ample opportunity to do so ? [D] Whether on the facts and circumstance of the case and in law, the Hon'ble ITAT was justified in confirming the deletion made by the Ld. CIT(A) of Rs.93,673/, out of disallowance of various expenses of Rs.1,87,346/, in spite of the facts that assessee has failed to prove that the expenses incurred were wholly made for business purpose?”

Counsel for the Revenue candidly pointed out that in Tax Appeal No.1000 of 2018 involving the same assessee, this Court had examined similar questions. By an order dated 14.08.2018, Tax Appeal was dismissed. Following observations were made:

“2. QuestionA relates

to assessee's declaration of opening stock of Rs.6.51 crores (rounded off) of fabric as on 01.04.2013 which the assessee claimed to have purchased from 24 suppliers. Assessing Officer doubted such declaration and carried out further inquiries. He noted that CENVAT provisions were introduced for the first time to the Textile Industries and all traders had to make declaration of stock as on 31.03.2003 to ascertain the CENVAT credit available in their accounts. The Assessing Officer did not find such stock declaration genuine and

therefore made consequential additions. In appeal, the assessee produced further C/TAXAP/1152/2018 ORDER materials including a certificate from the Superintendent of Central Excise, Surat, of the stock position of the assessee. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) called for the remand report and noted that the assessee had made such a declaration before the Income Tax as well as Central Excise Authorities of his stock position as on 31.03.2003. He therefore believed that such stock was actually in existence. He noted that such stock was subsequently sold by making proper declarations with the Excise Authorities. Monthly returns of claiming CENVAT credit were also filed.

In further appeal, the Tribunal also held in favour of the assessee. It was noted that the assessee had shown sale of such stock after May 2003, and the sale proceeds were also received during the year under consideration. The Tribunal noted that in the declaration

before

the Excise Authorities, the assessee had shown the stock of the same value pertaining to different kinds of gray fabric admeasuring 17,57,165 meters. The Tribunal also noted that such stock was cleared in subsequent period, for which, monthly declarations were filed.

It can thus be seen that the entire issue is based on appreciation of record. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) and the Tribunal concurrently held on facts that the assessee's declaration was genuine. No question of law arises.

QuestionsB and C pertained to the additions made by the Assessing Officer on account of his belief that the assessee had shown bogus creditors. In this context, the Tribunal while confirming the view of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), noted that there was sufficient evidence of the genuineness of the creditors. Further, such addition of the purchases would give distorted gross profit rate as compared to C/TAXAP/1152/2018 ORDER gross profit rate disclosed in similar type of business, interalia, on such grounds, the Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal.

Here also, the issues are entirely based on appreciation of record. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) and the Tribunal concurrently held in favour of the assessee. No question of law arises.

QuestionD pertains to disallowance of various expenses. The total of such expenses comes to barely Rs.1.86 lakhs. In any case, the question is factual.

In the result, Tax Appeal is dismissed.”

In the result, without recording separate reasons, this Tax Appeal is also dismissed. (AKIL KURESHI, J) (B.N. KARIA, J) ANKIT SHAH

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →