PIYUSH L RAMBHIA,MUMBAI vs. ITO 30(2)(5), MUMBAI

2 2. The facts in brief are that the assessee has been carrying on business of manufacturing digital temperature controllers having industrial application and has filed return of income on 29.9.2009 declaring a total income of Rs.4,24,394/-. The AO received the information from Sales Tax Department, GOM and DGIT (Investigation), Mumbai that the assessee has availed entries of bogus purchases bills from the hawala operators whose names were listed in the website of Sales Tax Department, GOM as suspicious dealers supplying bogus bills to the parties without providing actual and physical delivery of the material. Thereafter, the AO reopened the assessment by issuing notice u/s 148 dated 5.3.2014 after recording the reasons for issuance of notice u/s 148 as required by provisions of section 148(2) of the Act. The AO ,during the course of re-assessment proceedings, noted that the assessee has purchased material from the hawala dealers to the tune of Rs.50,65,495/- from 9 parties. The AO also tried to verify the genuineness of the purchases by issuing notice u/s 133(6) of the Act which was returned unserved. The assessee submitted before the AO that the purchases from these parties were genuine by furnishing the copies of bills for purchases of materials from the sellers parties. The AO also asked the assessee to furnish the books of account, documentary evidences in respect of hawala dealers vide show cause 3 notice dated 29.10.2014 which was not responded by the assessee. Similarly, a notice dated 12.2.2015 was also not responded by the assessee. Subsequently, the assessee filed details of stock, monthwise statement of purchase and closing stock as on 20.2.2015. However, failed to produce the parties or furnish delivery challans lorry receipt and transportation details etc. The AO ultimately added the entire amount of purchases made from hawala dealers to the income of the assessee by framing the assessment u/s 143(3) r.w.s 147 of the Act by assessing the total income assessee at Rs.50,89,890/- vide order dated 12.3.2015. In the appellate proceedings, the ld.CIT(A) partly allowed the appeal of the assessee by deleting the addition to the extent of 70% of alleged purchases by observing and holding as under : “5. I have considered the submissions of the appellant. I have also perused the findings of the A.O. in the assessment order. 5.1 So far the addition on account of the purchases are concerned, it is found that the notices u/s 133(6) issued to all the 9 parties returned unserved. The assessee failed to produce the parties in spite of specific requests made by the AO. Neither any other traceable address of any of the parties was filed by the assessee. The enquiries and investigation conducted by the Sales Tax Department along with the deposition of alleged suppliers clearly establish that these parties have issued bogus bills without any supply of goods. The AO has confronted all the materials and findings to the assessee. In fact, findings of the Sales Tax Department were available on its web-site and it was in public domain. The assessee has also failed to bring evidence of actual transportation and delivery of goods. Therefore, it is held that the 4 appellant has failed to prove that the goods were purchased from the aforesaid parties. 5.2 On the issue of bogus purchase, decisions like Vijay Proteins Ltd. vs. CIT [2015] 58 taxmann.com 44 (Guj) , CIT vs. Simit P. Sheth [2013] 356 ITR 451 (Guj.) and several other decisions support disallowance of certain percentage of purchase price. The disallowance is justified because the exact source of goods or exact amount of inflation is known to the assessee only. Further, without a much bigger benefit than the normal GP ratio, no prudent person will enter into transactions of purchasing materials from one source and taking bills from another. As a consequence, the profit embedded in such transactions of purchase and sales will be much higher than normal GP ratio. 5.3 In the facts and circumstances of the case, I find 30% of purchase disallowance to be fair and reasonable in this case: The G.P.ratio shown by the appellant during the year under consideration is found at 16.82 %. I am of the opinion that the disallowance of 100% of the purchase amount is not justified unless it is proved that the entire cash was returned and came to the pocket of the assessee and the assessee has not purchased any material from any other source . In the present case, in-depth enquiries were not conducted by the AO. The AO did not carry out further investigation from the bank to examine whether the supplier had withdrawn cash from his account. Accordingly, addition of Rs.15,19,649/- [ being 300% of Rs.50,65,495/- is sustained and balance Rs.35,45,847/-[ being 70% of Rs.50,65,495/-] is deleted. The ground is partly allowed.”