ACIT 32 (1), MUMBAI vs. SHRI HIMANSHU K MODI, MUMBAI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 5786/MUM/2019Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 May 2021AY 2008-194 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 assessee had discharged the primary onus of proving purchases by providing sufficient documentary evidence and supplier confirmations. The Assessing Officer failed to bring any material on record to disprove the purchases.

What were the facts?

The revenue appealed against the relief granted by the CIT(A) regarding alleged bogus purchases. The assessee provided documentary evidence, including supplier confirmations, to support the purchases.

What were the issues?

Whether the purchases made by the assessee were genuine, and if the assessee had discharged the onus of proving the purchases.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 143(3),Section 147,Section 148,Section 142(1),Section 133(6)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “H” BENCH, MUMBAI

Before: HON’BLE SHRI MAHAVIR SINGH, VP & HON’BLE SHRI MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL, AM

For Appellant: Shri Kamlesh Doshi-Ld. AR)
For Respondent: Shri S.S.Iyengar-Ld. DR

Heard together (2 matters)

I.T.A. No.5786/Mum/2019
I.T.A. No.5811/Mum/2019

Read from the judgment's own cause title. This page is filed under one of them.

O R D E R Manoj Kumar Aggarwal (Accountant Member) 1. Aforesaid appeals by revenue for Assessment Years (AY) 2008-09 & 2009-10 contest separate orders of learned first appellate authority which has provided certain relief to the assessee on account of alleged bogus purchases. The facts as well as issues are, more or less, common and therefore, the appeals were heard together and are now being disposed-off by way of this common order for the sake of convenience & brevity. 2.1 The material facts in AY 2008-09 are that the assessee being resident individual stated to be engaged as civil contractors under proprietorship concern namely M/s Vitrag Construction Co. was assessee for the year under consideration u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 147 on 27/03/2015 wherein it was saddled with disallowance of alleged bogus purchases @25% which worked out to be Rs.10.96 Lacs. The assessment was so framed pursuant to receipt of certain information from DGIT (Inv.) which indicated that the assessee procured bogus purchase bills of Rs.43.86 Lacs from an entity namely M/s Devdhar Steel. Accordingly, the case was reopened as per due process of law vide issuance of notice u/s 148 on 28/03/2014 followed by statutory notices u/s 142(1) and 143(2) requiring assessee to furnish the documentary evidences in support of purchases so made. 2.2 In defense, the assessee submitted ledger extracts, copies of invoices, bank statements evidencing payment through banking channels, financial statements of M/s Devdhar Steel and submitted that the purchased goods were further sold. However, the assessee failed to produce the supplier to confirm the transactions. Going by the factual matrix, Ld. AO estimated an addition of 25% against these purchases.

3.

Before Ld. CIT(A), the assessee drew attention to the confirmation filed by the said supplier in response to notice u/s 133(6). The same has been extracted in the impugned order at para 5.2.2. In addition, copy of complete details like bank statement, audit report, tax return, ledger account, sales confirmation, invoices and details of sales tax paid as well as extract from ‘Mahavat website’ stating that the party was active, was also filed. The same was contrary to Ld. AO’s observation that no confirmation was filed. It was submitted that the Ld. AO did not consider the extensive evidence filed by the assessee including the independent confirmation received u/s 133(6). Once the assessee had filed complete details, the onus shifted to Ld. AO to disprove the purchases. Since nothing of that sort that was brought on record, there was no merit in holding that the purchases were bogus. Concurring with the same, Ld. CIT(A) deleted the additions. Aggrieved, the revenue is in further appeal before us.

4.

After going through factual matrix as enumerated in preceding paragraphs, it is quite evident that the assessee was successful in discharging the primary onus of proving the purchase. The documentary evidences furnished by the assessee were backed by confirmation of supplier in response to notice u/s 133(6). As against this, no material has been brought on record by Ld. AO to establish that the purchases were bogus. Therefore, the impugned order is quite fair and judicious order. Finding no reason to interfere in the same, we dismiss the appeal.

5.

The facts are quite identical in AY 2009-10. In the assessment order dated 27/03/2015, the assessee was saddled with estimated additions of 12.5% against purchases of Rs.4.08 Lacs stated to be made from three entities i.e. M/s Shiv Industries, M/s Ambika Trading Co. & M/s Arihant Traders.

6.

Upon further appeal, Ld. CIT(A) deleted additions on account of purchases made from M/s Shiv Industries in view of the fact that no purchases were made from this entity but purchases were made from another entity M/s Shivam Industries with respect to whom the assessee had furnished sufficient documentary evidences. With respect to remaining two entities, the additions were confirmed. Aggrieved, the revenue is in further appeal before us assailing the relief so granted by Ld. CIT(A).

7.

Upon perusal of findings in the impugned order, it is quite evident that no purchases were made by M/s Shiv Industries as alleged by Ld. AO. The purchases were, in fact, made from another entity namely M/s Shivam Industries with respect to whom sufficient documentary evidences were adduced by the assessee. Hence, the additions were deleted. This being the case, our interference, in any manner, is uncalled for. The appeal stands dismissed.

8.

Both the appeals stands dismissed. Order pronounced on 3rd May, 2021 (Mahavir Singh) (Manoj Kumar Aggarwal) उपाध्यक्ष / Vice President लेखा दस्य / Accountant Member मुिंबई Mumbai; सदनािंक Dated : 03/05/2021 Sr.PS, Jaisy Varghese आदेशकीप्रधिधलधपअग्रेधर्ि/Copy of the Order forwarded to : अपीलाथी/ The Appellant 1. प्रत्यथी/ The Respondent 2. 3. आयकरआयुक्त(अपील) / The CIT(A) 4. आयकरआयुक्त/ CIT– concerned 5. सवभागीयप्रसतसनसध, आयकरअपीलीयअसधकरण, मुिंबई/ DR, ITAT, Mumbai गार्डफाईल / Guard File 6. आदेशाि सार/ BY ORDER, उप/सहायक पुंजीकार (Dy./Asstt.

More judgments on Section 147

All 49,210 judgments and leading authorities on Section 147 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →