Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “SMC” BENCH, MUMBAI
Before: HON’BLE SHRI MAHAVIR SINGH, JM & HON’BLE SHRI MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL, AM
आदेश / O R D E R Per Bench: -
Aforesaid appeals by assessee for Assessment Years [AY] 2009-10 & 2011-12 contest separate orders of first appellate authority on certain common grounds of appeal
. Since the facts as well as issues are identical, both the appeals are being disposed-off by way of this common order for -36/Mum/2018 Ashok Champalal Bokadia Assessment Years : 2009-10 & 2011-12 the sake of convenience & brevity. The grounds raised for AY 2009-10 read as under: - The ground or grounds of appeal are without prejudice to one another.
1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the ld. CIT(A) erred in upholding the action of the AO in re-opening of the assessment u/s. 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 as the prescribed conditions therein are not satisfied. 2. a)On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the ld. CIT(A) erred in confirming the addition to the extent of Rs.12,12,154/- made by the AO to the income of the Appellant on account of possible profit element @12.5% embedded in purchases made through alleged non-genuine parties on the basis of information of the Sales Tax Department about suspicious dealers. b)The ld. CIT(A) failed to appreciate that: - i) all the purchases are genuine beyond doubt and supported by sufficient materials; ii) all the goods purchased from these parties have been backed by corresponding sales which are accepted to be genuine; iii) the books of accounts maintained by the Appellant are correct and complete in accordance with the method of accounting regularly and consistently followed by the Appellant. iv) the gross profit ratio shown by the Appellant is quite reasonable; v) nothing has been brought on record by the AO that money has been exchanged in the hands in lieu of payment made for these purchases by account payee cheque; and vi) the AO had neither provided copy of materials and statements relied upon by him nor allowed any opportunity to the Appellant to cross examine those parties who have been alleged to have provided the accommodation entries of such purchases. c)In reaching to the conclusion and confirming such addition made by the AO, the Id. CIT(A) omitted to consider relevant factors, considerations, principles and evidences while he was overwhelmed, influenced and prejudiced by irrelevant considerations and factors. d) Without prejudice, the rate or percentage of profit element embedded in such purchases as confirmed by the CIT(A) is excessive and unreasonable on the facts of the case.
3. The ld. CIT(A) erred in holding that levy of interest u/s.234B and 234C of the Income Tax Act, 1961.
4. The ld. AO erred in initiating the penalty u/s.27l(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act.
2.1 Facts in brief are that the assessee being resident individual stated to be engaged in trading of metal under proprietorship concern namely M/s Praveen Metal Corporation, was assessed for impugned AY u/s. 143(3) r.w.s. 147 on 23/03/2015 wherein the income of the assessee was -36/Mum/2018 Ashok Champalal Bokadia Assessment Years : 2009-10 & 2011-12 determined at Rs.14.99 Lacs after sole addition of alleged bogus purchases for Rs.12.12 Lacs as against returned income of Rs.2.87 Lacs filed by the assessee on 29/09/2009 which was processed u/s.143(1). 2.2 Pursuant to receipt of certain information from investigation wing / Sales tax Department, Govt. of Maharashtra, it transpired that the assessee stood beneficiary of alleged bogus purchases to the tune of Rs.96.97 Lacs from 4 entities, the details of which have already been tabulated at para-2 of the quantum assessment order. Accordingly, as per due process of law, re-assessment proceedings were initiated against the assessee u/s 147 by issuance of notice u/s 148 on 11/02/2014. The statutory notices u/s 143(2) & 142(1) were issued in due course wherein the assessee was directed to substantiate the purchase transactions. The assessee was supplied with recorded reasons for reopening the case. 2.3 Although, the assessee defended the purchases, however, notices issued u/s 133(6) to all the suppliers remained unserved as well as un- responded to. The assessee failed to substantiate delivery of material and also failed to produce any of the suppliers to confirm the stated transactions which led the Ld. AO to believe that the assessee remained unsuccessful in discharging the onus casted upon him, in this regard. Consequently, the books were rejected u/s 145(3) and the assessee was saddled with an estimated addition @12.5% amounting to Rs.12.12 Lacs in the quantum assessment order. The stand of learned AO, upon confirmation by first appellate authority, is under challenge before us. We have heard and considered the arguments raised by respective representatives before us. -36/Mum/2018 Ashok Champalal Bokadia Assessment Years : 2009-10 & 2011-12 3. So far as the legal grounds are concerned, we find that the original return of income was processed u/s 143(1) and the only requirement under law to initiate reassessment proceedings was that learned AO had reasons to believe that certain income escaped assessment in the hands of the assessee. The Ld. AO was clinched with tangible material in the shape of information from investigation wing / Sales Tax Department which, prima- facie, suggested possible escapement of income in the hands of the assessee. Nothing more was required at this stage. Therefore, the reassessment proceedings were perfectly valid. Nothing on record support the legal grounds raised by assessee before us. The learned first appellate authority, in our opinion, has clinched the issue in the proper perspective and therefore, the same would not require any interreference on our part, Therefore, the legal grounds stand dismissed.
So far as the estimation of additions are concerned, we are of the considered opinion there could be no sale without actual purchase of material keeping in view the assessee’s nature of business i.e. trading. The assessee was in possession of primary purchase documents and the payments to the supplier was through banking channels. The sales turnover reflected by the assessee was not disputed / disturbed by Ld.AO. However, at the same time, the assessee miserably failed to substantiate the purchases during assessment proceedings. Notices issued u/s 133(6) remained un-responded to in all the cases. The assessee failed to prove -36/Mum/2018 Ashok Champalal Bokadia Assessment Years : 2009-10 & 2011-12 the delivery of material. Under such circumstances, the additions which could be sustained, was to account for profit element embedded in these purchase transactions to factorize for profit earned by assessee against possible purchase of material in the grey market and undue benefit of VAT against such bogus purchases, which Ld. first appellate authority has rightly done. However, keeping in view the fact that the assessee was dealing in a low-margin item like iron & steel which attracts lower rate of tax, the estimation made by Ld. CIT(A) would be slightly on the higher side. We modify the same to 5% of suspicious purchases which comes to Rs.4,84,862/-. The Ld. AO is directed to recompute the income in terms of our order. The grounds, on merits, stands partly allowed. The appeal stands partly allowed.
Facts are pari-materia the same in AY 2011-12 wherein the assessee was saddled with estimated addition of 12.5% against alleged bogus purchases in an assessment framed u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 147 on 18/10/2016. The first appellate authority confirmed the same. Since facts are identical, our observation, conclusion as well as adjudication as for AY 2009-10 shall mutatis mutandis apply to this year also. Accordingly, the impugned additions stand restricted to 5% of alleged bogus purchases. The same comes to Rs.2,57,185/-. The orders of lower authorities stand modified to that extent. The legal grounds stand rejected whereas the grounds, on merits, stands partly allowed. The appeal stands partly allowed. -36/Mum/2018 Ashok Champalal Bokadia Assessment Years : 2009-10 & 2011-12 Conclusion 6. Both the appeals stand partly allowed.
Order pronounced in the open court on 12th September, 2019. Sd/- Sd/- (Mahavir Singh) (Manoj Kumar Aggarwal) �ाियक सद� / Judicial Member लेखा सद� / Accountant Member मुंबई Mumbai; िदनांकDated : 12/09/2019 Sr.PS:-Jaisy Varghese आदेश की �ितिलिप अ�ेिषत/Copy of the Order forwarded to : अपीलाथ�/ The Appellant 1. ��थ�/ The Respondent 2. आयकरआयु�(अपील) / The CIT(A) 3. आयकरआयु�/ CIT– concerned 4. िवभागीय�ितिनिध, आयकरअपीलीयअिधकरण, मुंबई/ DR, ITAT, Mumbai 5. गाड�फाईल / Guard File 6.