Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “B” BENCH, MUMBAI
Before: HON’BLE SHRI MAHAVIR SINGH, JM & HON’BLE SHRI MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL, AM
आयकरअपील सं./ (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2009-10) M/s. Belami Fine Chemicals P. Ltd. DCIT-Circle-4(1)(2), बना 29, Gopal Bhuvan, 2nd Floor Aaykar Bhavan म/ 99, Shamaldas Gandhi Marg M.K. Road Vs. Mumbai- 400 002. Mumbai- 400 020. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./PAN/GIR No. AAACB-2987-J (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" / Respondent) : Assessee by : Shri Pravin N. Shah-Ld. AR Revenue by : Ms. Kavita P. Kaushik-Ld. DR सुनवाई की तारीख/ : 14/01/2020 Date of Hearing घोषणा की तारीख / : 14/01/2020 Date of Pronouncement आदेश / O R D E R Manoj Kumar Aggarwal (Accountant Member) 1. Aforesaid appeal by assessee for Assessment Year [in short referred to as ‘AY’] 2009-10 contest the order of Ld. Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals)-2, Mumbai, [in short referred to as ‘CIT(A)’], Appeal No. CIT(A)-2/IT/10096/2018-19 order dated 30/08/2018 on following grounds of appeal: - 2 M/s. Belami Fine Chemicals Private Limited Assessment Year :2009-10 1. The learned C.I.T. (Appeals)-2, Mumbai, has erred in law and on facts and circumstances of the case in rejecting the submissions made by the Appellant and confirming the additions made by the Assessing Officer (A.O.) of Rs. 8,66,070/- being 100% of total bogus purchases.
2. The learned C.I.T. (Appeals)-2, Mumbai has erred in law and on facts and circumstances of the case in not adjudicating upon Ground No. 2 regarding reliance placed by A.O. on the information obtained from the Sales Tax Dept/Investigation Wing of I.T. Department, on the premise that the said ground was not taken as an issue - by the Appellant.
The learned C.I.T. (Appeals)-2, Mumbai has erred in law and on facts in not following or not referring to the Supreme Court Decision in the case of Pr. C.I.T. Surat V. Tejua Rohit Kumar Kapadia (2018) 256 Taxman page 213.
4. The Learned C.I.T. (Appeals)-2 Mumbai has erred in law and on facts in relying upon the conclusions made by the A.O. and not adjudicating upon independently various other issues raised and evidence produced by Appellant like purchases made and consumed in manufacturing process, sales effected including export sales out of India, proof of transportation and movement of goods purchased, etc.
The learned C.I.T. (A)-2 Mumbai erred in law and on facts in not giving directions to the A.O. to Check Interest charged u/s. 234-B and 234-C of I.T. Act, as specifically mentioned in statement of facts. As evident, the assessee is aggrieved by confirmation of certain additions on account of alleged bogus purchases.
We have carefully heard the submissions made by both representatives. We have also perused material on record. Our adjudication to issue raised in the appeal would be as given in succeeding paragraphs. 3.1 Facts on record would reveal that the assessee being resident corporate assessee stated to be engaged in manufacturing of fine chemicals, was assessed for year under consideration 143(3) r.w.s. 147 on 20/02/2015 wherein the assessee was saddled with impugned additions of Rs.8.66 Lacs on account of alleged bogus purchases. The original return of income was filed by the assessee on 30/09/2009 at Rs.67.08 Lacs, which was processed u/s 143(1).
3 M/s. Belami Fine Chemicals Private Limited Assessment Year :2009-10 3.2 Pursuant to receipt of certain information from Sales Tax Department, Govt. of Maharashtra, it transpired that the assessee obtained bogus purchases bills aggregating to Rs.8.66 Lacs from as many as 3 entities, the details of which have already been extracted in para-5 of the quantum assessment order. Accordingly, the case was reopened as per due process of law vide issuance of notice u/s 148 on 27/03/2014 which was followed by statutory notices wherein the assessee was directed to substantiate the purchase transactions. 3.3 The assessee defended the purchases by furnishing copies of purchase invoices, bank statements evidencing payment to suppliers through banking channels, ledger extracts etc. But the assessee failed to substantiate the delivery of material. Consequently, Ld. AO disallowed these purchases and added back the same to the income of the assessee. The same, upon confirmation by learned CIT(A), is under appeal before us.
After careful consideration of rival submissions, we find that the assessee was engaged in manufacturing activity which would require consumption of raw material. The assessee was a corporate entity and its books of accounts were subjected to Audit as per statute. The assessee was in possession of primary purchase documents and the payments to the suppliers was through banking channel. Further, no concrete efforts were made by Ld. AO to confirm the stated transactions from the 3 suppliers and the additions were made primarily relying upon information received from the Sales Tax Department. However, at the same time, the onus to substantiate the stated purchases, was on assessee and the said onus remained undischarged. The assessee