SYNDICATE ENGG. INDUSTRIES,MUMBAI vs. A.C.I.T. - 27(3), MUMBAI

ORDER PER N.K. PRADHAN, A.M. This is an appeal filed by the assessee. The relevant assessment year is 2009-10. The appeal is directed against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax-25, Mumbai [in short ‘CIT(A)’] and arises out of the assessment completed u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 147 of the Income Tax Act 1961, (the ‘Act’). 2. The grounds of appeal filed by the assessee read as under :

1. Ground-1 The C.I.T. (Appeals) erred in estimating additional Profit of Rs.7,48,174/- @ 12.5% on alleged bogus purchase of Rs.59,85,393/- in spite of the fact that appellant had already declared a profit of 17.86% on sales and 21.75% on consumption which included the said purchase of Rs.59,85,393/-.

P a g e | M/s Syndicate Engg. Industries Vs. ACIT-27(3) 2. Ground -2: The C.I.T. (Appeal) erred in estimating the additional profit of Rs.7,48,174/- merely on the basis of assumptions, presumption and surmises.

3. Ground-3: The C.I.T. (Appeal) erred in estimating additional Profit @12.5% on alleged bogus Purchase of Rs.59,85,393/- whereas the Assessing Officer has held alleged bogus Purchase as Rs.47,63,759/-.

During the course of reassessment proceedings, the appellant filed before the AO vide letter dated 10.10.2014 stating that (i) it manufactures fasteners and for that purpose purchases are made from the parties through representatives who come to sell their products and offer ‘credit’ for such goods sold, (ii) it checks their invoices which contain address, MVAT TIN and CST TIN, (iii) then it checks the details available on the Sales Tax Department for existence and genuineness of all parties like TIN No. and status etc., (iv) the registering authority under Sales Tax Department has to verify in person to issue the TIN registration certificate, (v) the assessee made payments for the goods purchased from the party through P a g e | M/s Syndicate Engg. Industries Vs. ACIT-27(3) account payee crossed cheque, (vi) as the payment has been made through account payee crossed cheque, it is assumed that there must be a bank account of the party in the same name in which the cheque is issued, (vii) it is compulsory to produce PAN details to operate the said account as per RBI norms, (viii) the cheque will be deposited into the same bank account in which the bill was issued as per the knowledge of the assessee, (ix) the same goods are sold by the assessee and hence income of the said transaction is considered in the credit side of the trading and PL account as “sales”, (x) therefore, the amount in question is already considered as income by the assessee and the same is declared while filing the return of income. However, the AO was not convinced with the above explanation of the assessee for the reason that the notices u/s 133(6) issued by him to the parties calling for details like copies of ledger account of the assessee in their books, nature of goods sold along with sample copies of bills issued, copy of delivery challans of goods dispatched along with transport bills, copy of bank statement showing the relevant receipts and payments of outstanding receipt after the end of the year and copy of their return of income for the AY 2009-10, were returned by the postal authorities. The AO also noted that the appellant failed to produce the parties before him for examination. The AO noted the peak of the purchases which works out to Rs.47,63,759/- and made an addition of it as unexplained expenditure u/s 69C to the income shown by the assessee.