ITO, BKC vs. V.D. POP & DISPLAY LLP, MUMBAI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 2458/MUM/2025Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai07 July 2025AY 2018-195 pages

In favour of the assessee: the Revenue's appeal was dismissed. From the AI summary of this appeal.

AI SummaryDismissed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) was justified in directing the deletion of the addition of Rs.5,21,484/-. The AO had examined the evidence submitted by the assessee, including copies of invoices, banking details, and compliance with notices under section 133(6). While the AO noted discrepancies in sales and purchase figures, he did not make any adverse observations regarding the documentary evidence provided by the assessee. The assessment order was silent on the assessee's replies. The Tribunal noted that the AO, who initiated scrutiny based on information of bogus purchases amounting to Rs.69.81 lakh, restricted the addition to Rs.5.21 lakh, implying the assessee was not found indulging in bogus purchases to that extent. The CIT(A) had taken due cognizance of the substantial evidence, including ledger copies, bank statements, and vendor confirmations, which demonstrated the genuineness of the purchases. Therefore, the Tribunal found no infirmity in the CIT(A)'s conclusion and dismissed the Revenue's grounds of appeal.

What were the facts?

The Revenue has appealed against the order dated 10.02.2025 passed by the CIT(A). The appeal pertains to the assessment order dated 22.09.2021 passed by the Assessing Officer (AO) under section 143(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, for Assessment Year 2018-19. The assessee, M/s V.D. POP & Display LLP, had filed its return declaring a total income of Rs.76,16,260/-. The case was selected for scrutiny based on information from DDIT(Inv.), Kolkata, regarding alleged bogus billing of Rs.69,81,772/-. The AO made an addition of Rs.5,21,484/- on account of unexplained expenditure, treating it as bogus purchases. The CIT(A), upon considering the evidence submitted by the assessee, directed the deletion of this addition.

What were the issues?

1. Whether, on the facts and in law, the Ld.CIT(A) erred in deleting the disallowance of bogus purchases amounting to Rs.5,21,484/-, which was added by the AO under section 143(3) of the IT Act? 2. Whether, on the facts and in law, the Ld.CIT(A) erred in overlooking the finding of the Directorate of Investigation, Kolkata, that the assessee transacted with two parties, M/s. Clear Polyplast and M/s. Shri Mathuresh Polyplast, engaged in bogus transactions through billings? 3. Whether, on the facts and in law, the Ld.CIT(A) erred by not considering the assessee's failure to prove the identity and genuineness of the transactions/parties during assessment proceedings? 4. Whether, on the facts and circumstances, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in not appreciating that the Human Probability Test applied in this case showed that the assessee's claims could not sustain? Assessee's contentions (as reflected in the CIT(A)'s order and the Tribunal's analysis): The assessee submitted copies of ledgers, original invoices, and bank statements for purchases from M/s. Clear Poly Plast (Rs.98,454/-) and Shri Mathuresh Polyplast (Rs.4,23,030/-), demonstrating payment and genuineness. The invoices for Shri Mathuresh Polyplast were from the pre-GST period. Revenue's contentions (as reflected in the grounds of appeal): The Revenue argued that the CIT(A) erred in deleting the addition, overlooking the Directorate of Investigation's findings on bogus transactions, and failing to consider the assessee's inability to prove the identity and genuineness of parties. The Revenue also contended that the Human Probability Test was not appreciated by the CIT(A).

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 143(3),Section 69C,Section 133(6)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Before: Ms. KAVITHA RAJAGOPAL & SHRI PRABHASH SHANKAR

For Appellant: Shri Tejas Sodha, AR
For Respondent: Ms. Kavitha P. Kaushik (Sr. DR)
Hearing: 01.07.2025Pronounced: 07.07.2025

PER PRABHASH SHANKAR [A.Μ.] :- The present appeal arising from the appellate order dated 10.02.2025 is filed by the Revenue against the order passed by the Learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals)/National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [hereinafter referred to as “CIT(A)"] pertaining to assessment order passed u/s.143(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 [hereinafter referred to as “Act”] dated 22.09.2021 for the Assessment Year [A.Y.] 2018-19. M/s V.D. POP & Display LLP, Plot No. 44/45, Village Pehlar NH-8, Vasai, Nallasopara East, District Palghar, Mira Bhyandar 401209, Maharashtra

2.

The grounds of appeal are as under:-

1.

Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld.CIT(A) has erred in the disallowance of bogus purchases of Rs.5,21,484/- added by the Assessing Officer in order u/s 143(3) of the IT Act.?

2.

Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld.CIT(A) has erred in overlooking the explicit finding of the Directorate of Investigation, Kolkata that the assessee has undertaken various transactions with 2 parties i.e. M/s. Clear Polyplast and M/s. Shri Mathuresh Polyplast which were engaged in the bogus transitions through bogus billings?

3.

Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld.CIT(A) has erred in the disallowance not considering the fact that the assessee also failed to prove the identity and genuineness of the transactions/parties during the Assessment proceedings?

4.

Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in not appreciating the fact that the Human Probability Test applied in this case and false claims of the assessee cannot sustain before the test of Human Probability.

5.

The appellant craves leave to add, amend, alter substitute or modify any of the above grounds or add a fresh ground as and when found necessary either before or at the time of hearing.

3.

Brief facts of the case are that the assessee Firm filed its return of income for the year declaring total income of Rs.76,16,260/-. The case was selected under compulsory manual selection of returns for complete scrutiny based on the information received from DDIT(Inv.), Kolkata, that the assessee had evaded tax in form of bogus billing to the tune of Rs.69,81,772/- during the relevant year. Subsequently, notices u/s.143(2) and notices u/s.142(1) dated along with questionnaire were issued from time to time. The assessee filed submissions but the AO did not find any satisfactory reply or justification for the purchases to the extent of Rs.5,21,484/- and treated it as bogus purchase u/s.69C of the Act as unexplained expenditure.

4.

In the subsequent appeal before the ld.CIT(A), the assessee submitted that the addition made by the AO of Rs.5,21,484/-pertained to the purchases from two parties viz. M/s. Clear Poly Plast amounting to Rs.98,454/- and from Shri Mathuresh Polyplast amounting to Rs.4,23,030/-. With reference to the purchases made from M/s. Clear Poly Plast, the assessee submitted copy of ledger in its books duly signed and stamped by the said supplier, copy of original invoices and copy of bank statement highlighting the payments made to them. With reference to the purchases made from Shri Mathuresh Poly Plast, it submitted copy of ledger confirmation duly signed and stamped by the vendor, invoices of the pre-GST period which proved that the vendor agreed to the purchases made by the assessee from them and copy of bank statement highlighting the payments made to them. In view of above evidences, the ld.CIT(A) directed the AO to delete the addition made amounting Rs.5,21,484/-.

5.

We find that the AO has discussed the above issue stating that there were certain discrepancies in the figures of sales and purchases in the accounts of the assessee and above two concernes. He also refers to the explanations given by the assessee in these regard from time to time. He did not make any adverse observation in respect of the copies of invoices, banking details etc. filed by the assessee. Even the notices issued u/s 133(6) of the Act were duly complied with above parties. He has also referred to submissions dated 20.09.2021 and 04.09.2021 as per para 8.2 of the order. However, he did not make any adverse comments by simply stating that these were examined. As such, the assessment order is silent on these replies. As regards the differences in sales/purchase figures, it appears that the same were on account of GST figures. It may be stated here that the AO picked up the case for scrutiny on the information of bogus purchases amounting to Rs 69.81 lakh but restricted the addition to the extent of Rs 5.21 lakh only. Therefore, the assessee was not found indulging in bogus purchase as per the conclusion drawn by him. The ld.CIT(A) has taken due cognizance of the evidences adduced by the assessee before the AO and him. He noted that after going through the assessment order and also considering the assessee's submissions during the appellate proceedings that the it had submitted substantial evidence which included copy of Ledger, Copy of Bank Statement and Copy of ledger confirmation duly signed and stamped by the vendor for the purchase made of Rs.5,21,484/- which showed the genuineness of the purchase. Considering all the above facts, we do not find any infirmity in the conclusion drawn by him. We therefore, hold that he was justified in directing the AO to delete the impugned addition. The grounds of appeal by the Revenue are therefore dismissed.

8.

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed. Order pronounced in the open court on 07.07.2025. KAVITHA RAJAGOPAL (न्यायिक सदस्य /JUDICIAL MEMBER) Place: मुंबई/Mumbai दिनांक / Date 07.07.2025 Lubhna Shaikh / Steno PRABHASH SHANKAR (लेखाकार सदस्य/ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) आदेश की प्रतिलिपि अग्रेषित/

More judgments on Section 69C

All 8,217 judgments and leading authorities on Section 69C →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →