Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “G” BENCH, MUMBAI
Before: SHRI SHAMIM YAHYA, AM & SHRI RAM LAL NEGI, JM Shri Sunil Govind Agre
O R D E R Per Shamim Yahya, A. M.:
This appeal by the assessee is directed against the order of the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-45, Mumbai (‘ld.CIT(A) for short) dated 31.01.2018 and pertains to the assessment year (A.Y.) 2011-12.
The grounds of appeal read as under:
The Hon’ble CIT(A) has erred in not considering the primary ground of appeal
made before his honor objecting the addition made u/s. 69C, treating the purchases made by the assessee as bogus and unexplained in nature.
2. The Hon’ble CIT(A) has erred in not following the precedence set under the law by the ITAT.
3. The Hon’ble CIT(A) has erred in not appreciating the facts that the assessee has submitted all documents and records and therefore in the absence of contrary to the facts placed on record, the assessee ought to receive the benefit of the claim for expenditure made on account of alleged bogus purchases.
4. The Hon’ble CIT(A) has erred in not giving the due appreciation on the main grounds of appeal and without rejecting the same has considered the ground made by the assessee on an alternate and optional ground of appeal.
(Assessment Year: 2011-12) 3. Brief facts of the case are that during the assessment proceedings, the Assessing Officer asked the assessee to furnish details like loading and unloading charges, transportation details, copies of delivery challans, proof of entry in stock register ledger accounts of seller parties in the books of the assessee in order to prove its purchases and also produce the purchase parties for verification. The assessee vide letter dated 05.03.2014 had produced copies of purchase bills, delivery challans, month wise stock receipts and issues of stock register purchase bills and sales bills along with proof for payment for purchases through bank. Assessee also produced confirmation from the seller parties. Regarding producing of parties before the A.O., the assessee submitted that he has no control over these parties after such long period. The A.O. issued notice u/s.133(6) but the notices were returned unserved by the postal authorities. The A.O. held that the onus was on the assessee to prove genuineness of purchases, which he failed to discharge by producing the parties. The notices issued by the department were returned unserved, therefore, he treated the entire purchases of Rs.85,08,600/- were not verifiable and added as unexplained expenditure u/s.69C of the Act.
Upon the assessee’s appeal, the ld. CIT(A) relied upon the conclusion by the assessee and held as under: 4.7 Assessee in its submission before the A.O. vide letter dated 07.03.2014 at point (g) submitted that without prejudice to his arguments that his gross profit is 1.66%, addition at GP of 9% may be made as additional income. However, the appellant has taken an alternate ground as under: 5. Without prejudice to the above, the assessee states that the peak purchases of Rs.31,50,000/- can at the most be determined as unexplained purchases. It is noticed that the appellant thought filed confirmations of the seller parties but failed to produce them for verification. Notices issued by the A.O. were not served at the given addresses. Examination of the bank accounts of these parties by the A.O. at the time of remand proceedings, it appeared that the seller parties were only rotating funds in their accounts. Affidavit filed by the appellant by himself during the proceedings supports the argument of the A.O. Thought the A.O. has not made any analysis with regard to the penak purchases and bank transactions from the peak point of view, the assessee himself has worked out and came up with the peak of his purchases. Therefore, accepting the alternate ground of the appellant, the A.O. is directed to restrict the addition to the peak of purchases of Rs.31,50,000/- as against the addition of Rs.85,08,600/-. Appellant gets part relief.
Now the assessee has filed the appeal before us.
(Assessment Year: 2011-12) 6. We have heard the ld. Departmental Representative (ld. DR for short) and perused the records. We find that the ld. CIT(A) has granted relief to the assessee as desired by the assessee for which the assessee himself gave the necessary working. Hence, in this view of the matter, we find that the ld. CIT(A) has granted the assessee the relief which the assessee pleaded before him. Hence, we uphold the order of the ld. CIT(A). Moreover, we note that in revenue’s appeal in this case in vide order dated 31.07.2019, this ITAT has already upheld the order of the ld. CIT(A).
In the result, this appeal by the assessee stands dismissed.
Order pronounced under rule 34(4) of the Income Tax (Appellate Tribunal) Rules, 1962, by placing the details on the notice board on 09.03.2021