Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “H” BENCH, MUMBAI
Before: SHRI SHAMIM YAHYA, AM & SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN, JM
सुनवाई क" तार"ख / : 14.09.2017 Date of Hearing घोषणा क" तार"ख / : 04.12.2017 Date of Pronouncement आदेश / O R D E R Per Shamim Yahya, A. M.: This Appeal by the assessee directed against the Order by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-29, Mumbai dated 19.07.2016 and pertains to the assessment year (A.Y.) 2009-10. 2. The issue raised is that ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred in sustaining disallowance of 12.5 % of bogus purchase.
2 Shri Dilip B. Shah vs. ITO 3. The grounds of appeal read as under:
1. Learned Assessing Officer erred in adding peak purchases of the total purchase value amounting of Rs.19320247/- ignoring the detailed evidences brought on record and further erred in levying interest thereon and ignoring the judicial precedents brought to his knowledge.
2. Learned Assessing Officer erred in disallowing the purchases on the basis of information received from Sales Tax Authorities which contrary to the material fact on record and more particularly is contrary to the provisions of Section 69C since the source is in dispute and not the purchase expenditure.
In this case, the return of income was filed on 16.09.2009 declaring total income at Rs.8,13,210/-. The Assessing Officer in the assessment order has stated that assessment in this case was initiated on the basis of information received from the office of DGIT(Inv.), Mumbai. The information was that the sales tax department has exercised due diligence which revealed that the assessee is involved in taking accommodation entries of bogus purchases to the tune of Rs.1,93,20,247/- from 11 parties as under :-
Hawala PAN Hawala Dealer Name Amount in Rs. AALCS2561E Sunico traders Pvt. Ltd. 38,79,639/- AFMPS3081A Gopikrishna Trading Co/Blue 33,33,712/- Sky Trade Impex AACCN6055H Nandkishor Sales Agency Pvt. Ltd. 6,20,837/- AWTPS0269A Tara Enterprises 36,28,779/- AADCR7441L Remi Trading Comp. P. Ltd. 6,19,757/- ACZPV3215F Skand Industries 5,87,166/- AACCM1443M Newspark Trading Co. P. Ltd. 7,21,062/- AGNPM5002H P M Udyog 6,21,718/- AHUPK6877A Siddhi Enterprises 15,42,646/- ALXPM4040Q Jasmine Enterprises 10,26,917/- ALMPK4643E Vani Enterprises 27,38,014/- 3 Shri Dilip B. Shah vs. ITO Assessing Officer after issuing notice u/s.148 had asked the assessee to furnish the details regarding goods purchased from the party, copies of bills raised, ledger account of the party, documentary evidences such as transportation bills, bank statements and so on. The assessee was asked to produce the principal persons of the impugned parties which the assessee failed to do so. The assessee filed ledger account of all the parties and copy of his bank statements reflecting the payments made to these parties. No evidence of transportation of goods required by the Assessing Officer were furnished. The assessee further admitted that the concerned parties are not available at their last known addresses nor does he know the current whereabouts of the parties. The assessee confirmed that it has sold the goods which have been purchased from the alleged hawala dealers and has realized the sale proceeds. Therefore, it was pleaded that the purchases have to be treated as genuine.
The Assessing Officer however, relying on the decision of the Hon'ble ITAT, Ahmedabad in the case of Vijay Proteins worked out the peak credit for the purchases made from the alleged hawala parties. The peak credit worked out to Rs.90,13,127/- which has been added u/s.69C of the income-tax Act by the Assessing Officer.
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 to the extent of 12.5% of the bogus purchase. The ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) concluded as under:
4 Shri Dilip B. Shah vs. ITO It was for the appellant to prove that these purchases were genuine in the face of contrary statement given by the sellers. The appellant has miserably failed to do so and therefore agreed for the GP addition. It is not a case where the appellant was forced or coerced into making the addition. If the appellant had any kind of evidence in his possession, he would have certainly flashed it before the AO. In 'these circumstances, the agreement for addition of GP by the appellant has to be taken seriously. 4.3.1. The Hori'ble ITAT, Ahmedabad VC' Bench in the case of Vijay Proteins Ltd. vs. ACIT 58 ITD 0428 held that in similar circumstances, 25% of the purchase price accounted through fictitious invoices has to be disallowed. The Hon'ble High Court of Gujarat in the case of Sanjay Oil cakes v/s CIT 316 ITR 0274 dealt with similar case where some of the alleged suppliers who had issued bills to the assessee were not genuine as they were not traceable. The goods were received from other parties. The likelihood of the purchase price being included could not be ruled out and therefore the Hon'ble High Court has upheld the decision of CIT(A) and the ITAT disallowing 25% of the payments made to such parties. The Hon'ble High Court of Gujarat in the case of CIT vs. Simit P. Sheth 356 ITR 0451 held that once the sale is accepted by the AO, the very basis of purchases could not be questioned. Not the entire purchase price could be disallowed but only the profit element embedded in such purchases could be added to the income of the assessee. The estimation varies with the nature of business and no uniform yardstick could be adopted. Given the facts and circumstances of the instant case, I find it reasonable to estimate the profit at 12.5% of the alleged purchases of Rs.1,93,20,247/-.
Against the above order of ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), the assessee is in appeal before the ITAT.
We have heard both the counsel and perused the records. We find that credible and cogent information was received in this case by the assessing officer that certain accommodation entry provider/bogus suppliers were being used by certain parties to obtained bogus bills. The assessee was found to have taken accommodation entry/bogus purchase bills during the concerned assessment year from different parties. Based upon this information assessment was reopened. The credibility of information relating to reopening remains un-assailed. In such factual scenario, the 5 Shri Dilip B. Shah vs. ITO assessing officer has made the necessary enquiry. The issue of notice to all the parties have returned unserved. Assessee has not been able to provide any confirmation from any of the party. Assessee has also not been able to produce any of the parties.
Necessary evidence relating to transportation of the goods was also not on record. In this factual scenario, it is amply clear that the assessee has obtained bogus purchase bills. Mere preparation of documents for purchases cannot controvert overwhelming evidence that the provider of these bills is bogus and non-existent.
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 circumstances, there is no doubt that these parties are non-existent. We 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 6 Shri Dilip B. Shah vs. ITO 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.
We 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.
However, the facts of that case were different. Furthermore, the sales in that case were basically to government departments. Hence, the ratio from this decision is not applicable on the facts of the case.
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 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.
We 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 7 Shri Dilip B. Shah vs. ITO 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: "Considering the law declared by the Supreme Court in the case of Vijay Proteins Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax, Special Leave to Appeal (C) No.8956/2015 decided on 06.04.2015 whereby the Supreme Court has dismissed the SLP confirmed the order dated 09.12.2014 passed by the Gujarat High Court and other decisions of the High Court of Gujarat in the case of Sanjay Oilcake Industries Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax (2009) 316 ITR 274 (Guj) and N.K. Industries Ltd. Vs. Dy. C.I.T., Tax Appeal No.240/2003 decided on 20.06.2016, the parties are bound by the principle of law pronounced in the aforesaid three judgments. 11. However, we note that this is not an appeal by the Revenue. Hence, it will not be appropriate to take away the relief already granted by the Revenue to the assessee. Hence, we confirm the order of ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals).
We further note that since we are confirming the order of the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) on the basis of the Hon’ble Supreme Court and Hon’ble High Court decisions, cases from Tribunal referred by the assessee do not hold precedence over them.