CLEAN ENGINEERING PRIVATE LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 1(1), MUMBAI

This appeal has been filed by the assessee against the order dated 14.09.2017 passed by the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-2, Pune, for the assessment year 2011-12, whereby the Ld. CIT (A) has dismissed the appeal filed by the assessee against assessment order passed u/s 143 (3) read with section 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short ‘the Act’).

Brief facts of the case are that the assessee filed its return of income for the assessment year under consideration declaring the total income of Rs. 6,86,805/-. The return was processed u/s 143(1) of the Act. During the assessment proceedings, the AO received information from the Sales Tax Department, Maharashtra that certain bogus entities, during the year relevant to the assessment year under consideration, issued bogus bills to a large number of tax payers including the present assessee. As per the information 2 Assessment Year: 2011-12 the assessee obtained bogus bills from Growell Enterprises, Turbo Sales Exim Pvt. Ltd. and Hariom Traders amounting to Rs. 16,15,950/-. Accordingly, the AO issued notice u/s 148 of the Act. In response thereof the assessee submitted that the return already filed may be treated as return filed in response to notice u/s 148 of the Act. The AO further issued notice u/s 143 (2) and 142 (1) along with the questionnaire. The assessee was further asked to submit the information of J-I and J-II, statement, stock register, mode of payment, transportation bills and octroi challan and delivery challan pertaining to the purchases claimed. The authorized representative submitted some of the details, however, failed to produce transportation bills, delivery challan and octroi challan. Notices u/s 133 (6) issued to the parties concerned received back un-served. Independent investigation carried out by the Inspector Income Tax also established that the purchase in question were not genuine. One more opportunity was given to the assessee to produce the parties and to furnish the requisite details. Since, the assessee failed to do the same the AO held the purchases in question as bogus and added the entire amount of bogus purchases to the income of the assessee.

In the first appeal the Ld. CIT(A) after hearing the assessee confirmed the addition made by the AO and dismissed the appeal of the appellant/assessee. Aggrieved by the order of Ld. CIT (Appeals), the assessee has challenged the impugned order by filing the present appeal.

The assessee has challenged the impugned order by raising the following effective ground:-

On the other hand, the Ld. Departmental Representative (DR) submitted that since, the assessee has failed to submit the details of vehicle expense, vehicle number, type of vehicle and transport receipt for verification, the assessee has failed to discharge the onus of proving genuineness of the purchases. Moreover, the independent verification made by the Inspector has established that the purchases in question are not genuine. Hence, the Ld. CIT