AAS MOHAMMED KHAN,MUMBAI vs. ITO 26(1)(1), MUMBAI

(A.Y. 2009-10) Aas Mohammed Khan vs. ITO 2. The issue raised is that ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred in sustaining disallowance of 12.5 %percent of bogus purchase amounting to Rs.12,94,464/-.

The brief facts of the case are that the proceedings u/s.147/148 were initiated in this case after recording the reasons on the basis of the information received in the case of the assessee by CIT-21, Mumbai from Sales Tax Department through Office of DGIT(Inv.), Mumbai that the assessee had taken entries of bogus purchase through the havala parties. The case was reopened u/s. 147 of the IT Act. Notice u/s. 148 of the IT Act, 1961 was issued to the assessee on 21.03.2014 and served upon the assesse. The Assessing Officer observed that the assessee was one of the beneficiary of the accommodation entries for bogus purchases. The Sales Tax Department had identified entities which were indulging in providing accommodation bills without doing any genuine business. As per information received from the Sales Tax Department, assessee had obtained accommodation bills during the A.Ys.2009-10 from the very entities which were listed on the website of Sales Tax Department and declared as Hawala Dealers. The Assessing Officer further observed that the assessee obtained bogus purchase bills to the tune of Rs.1,03,71,712/- from the following parties during the F.Y.2008-09 which reflected in the List of Hawala Dealers Maharashtra Sales Tax Department.

During the course of assessment proceedings various details in relation to the income derived by the assessee have been called for. The assessee produced the books of accounts, bills/vouchers etc. at the time of hearing. During the course of assessment proceedings, notices u/s. 133(6) of the I.T. Act were issued to the above mentioned parties, as per bills produced by the assessee to verify the genuineness of purchases made by the assessee from these parties, through the speed post. However, the notices had returned un-served with the remark "not found" or "left". Thereafter, the ld. Counsel of the assessee was asked to produce the said parties for verification of purchases of Rs.103,71,712/- made by the assessee. However, the assessee failed to produce the aforesaid parties for verification.

The Assessing Officer after considering the submissions of the assessee observed that the assessee had merely furnished ledger account and invoices and has claimed the relevant purchases as genuine only because the payment has been made by cheque. The Assessing Officer further contended that invoices produced by the assessee cannot be treated as genuine in view of the fact that the concerned parties have confessed before the sales-tax authorities that they are in the business of issuing bills without actually selling any material and that the ledger account is only self made

Against the above order, the assessee appealed before the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals). The ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) confirmed the action of the assessing officer in making addition of 12.5% of the bogus purchase.

Against the above order of ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), the assessee is in appeal before the ITAT.

The Sales Tax Department in its enquiry has found the parties to be providing bogus accommodation entries. The assessing officer also issued notices to these parties at the addresses provided by the assessee. All these notices have returned unserved. Assessee has not been able to produce any of the parties. Neither the assessee has been able to produce any confirmation from these parties. In such (A.Y. 2009-10) Aas Mohammed Khan vs. ITO circumstances, there is no doubt that these parties are non-existent. I find it further strange that assessee wants the Revenue to produce assessee’s own vendors, whom the assessee could not produce. The purchase bills from these non-existent/bogus parties cannot be taken as cogent evidence of purchases. In light of the overwhelming evidence, the Revenue authorities cannot put upon blinkers and accept these purchases as genuine. This proposition is duly supported by Hon’ble Apex Court decision in the case of Sumati Dayal vs. CIT [1995] 214 ITR 801 (SC) and CIT vs. Durga Prasad More [1971] 82 ITR 540 (SC). In the present case, the assessee wants that the unassailable fact that the suppliers are non-existent and, thus, bogus should be ignored and only the documents being produced should be considered. This proposition is totally unsustainable in light of Hon’ble Apex Court decisions.

I further find that Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court in the case of Nikunj Eximp Enterprises (in Writ petition no 2860, order dt. 18.6.2014) has upheld 100% allowance for the purchases said to be bogus when the sales have not been doubted.

In these circumstances, the learned Departmental Representative has referred to Hon’ble Gujarat High Court decision in the case of Tax Appeal No. 240 of 2003 in the case of N K Industries vs. Dy. CIT vide order dated 20.06.2016, wherein 100% of (A.Y. 2009-10) Aas Mohammed Khan vs. ITO the bogus purchases was held to be added in the hands of the assessee and tribunals restriction of the addition to 25% of the bogus purchases was set aside. It was expounded that when purchase bills have been found to be bogus, 100% disallowance was required. The special leave petition against this order along with others has been dismissed by the Hon’ble Apex Court vide order dated 16.1.2017.

I further note that Hon’ble Rajasthan high court has similarly taken note of decisions of the apex court on the issue of bogus purchases in the case of CIT Jaipur vs Shruti Gems in of 2009. The Hon’ble High Court has referred to the decision of CIT Jaipur vs. Aditya Gems, D. B. in ITA No. 234 of 2008 dated 02.11.2016, wherein the Hon’ble Court had inter alia held as under:

However, I note that this is not an appeal by the Revenue. Hence, it will not be appropriate to consider and take away the relief already granted by the Revenue to the assessee. Hence, I confirm the order of ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals).

I further note that since I am confirming the order of the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) on the basis of the Hon’ble Supreme Court and Hon’ble High

In the result, this appeal filed by the assessee stands dismissed. Order pronounced in the open court on 06.02.2018