RISHABHA CONSUMER PRODUCTS PRIVATE LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER - WARD 15(3)(1), MUMBAI

Aforesaid appeal has been filed by the assessee challenging the order dated 17th November 2017, passed by the learned Commissioner (Appeals)–24, Mumbai, for the assessment year 2010–11.

2 Rishabh Consumer Products Pvt. Ltd.

Tax Act, 1961 (for short “the Act”). Subsequently, on the basis of information obtained from the Sales Tax Department, State of Maharashtra, the Assessing Officer found that purchases of ` 78,92,528, shown to have been made by the assessee from Laxmi Enterprises is not genuine as the said party has been identified as a hawala operator providing accommodation bills. On the basis of such information, the Assessing Officer re–opened the assessment under section 147 of the Act. During the assessment proceedings, when the Assessing Officer called upon the assessee to prove the genuineness of such purchases, the assessee denied of having made any purchases from the said party. However, rejecting the submissions of the assessee, the Assessing Officer held that the purchases made by the assessee from Laxmi Enterprises remained unproved. However, on the basis of submissions made by the assessee for addition of gross profit @ 11.17% of the bogus purchases the Assessing Officer made addition of ` 8,81,595. Being aggrieved of such addition, though, the assessee filed an appeal before the first appellate authority, however, the learned Commissioner (Appeals) sustained the addition made by the Assessing Officer.

re–opening of assessment under section 147 of the Act as well as violation of rules of natural justice, however, at the time of hearing of appeal before me, the only submission made by the learned Authorised Representative is, though, from the stage of assessment proceedings itself the assessee has been claiming that in the relevant previous year, it has not effected any purchase from Laxmi Enterprises, the claim of the assessee was not considered properly. Though, the learned Authorised Representative agreed that purchases from Laxmi Enterprises were shown in the VAT audit report, however, she submitted that the assessee, in fact, has not made any purchases from the said party. Therefore, she requested for an opportunity to prove such fact before the Assessing Officer.

4 Rishabh Consumer Products Pvt. Ltd. report, however, it is equally true that in course of assessment proceedings as well as before the learned Commissioner (Appeals) the assessee has claimed that it has not made any purchases from Laxmi Enterprises during the relevant previous year.