ALI ISPAT P.LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT 14(1)(1),

PDF · subscribers
ITA 2699/MUM/2017Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 October 2017AY 2010-115 pages
AI SummaryPartly Allowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal, considering the assessee's disclosed Gross Profit (GP) and prior year GP, modified the CIT(A)'s order. It directed the AO to restrict the addition to 10% of the bogus purchases.

What were the facts?

The assessee's purchases were deemed bogus by the AO based on information from the Investigation Wing and Sales Tax authorities. The CIT(A) upheld the addition but restricted it to 12.5% of the bogus purchases, estimating profit.

What were the issues?

Whether the addition on account of bogus purchases should be restricted to a lower percentage than 12.5% when the assessee had disclosed a GP of 6.19%.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 143(3),Section 147,Section 131,Section 133(6)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “E”, BENCH MUMBAI

Before: SHRI R.C.SHARMA, AM & SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN, JM

For Appellant: Shri Sameer Dalal
For Respondent: Shri V. Justin
Hearing: 16/10/2017Pronounced: 24/10/2017

आदेश / O R D E R PER R.C.SHARMA (A.M):

1.

This is an appeal filed by the assessee against the order of CIT(A)- 22, Mumbai dated 30/01/2017 for the A.Y.2010-11 in the matter of order passed u/s.143(3) r.w.s. 147 of the IT Act.

2.

In this appeal, assessee is aggrieved for upholding the addition @12.5% by CIT(A) in respect of bogus purchases.

3.

Rival contentions have been heard and record perused.

4.

The brief facts are that information was received from the Investigation regarding the involvement of the assessee in obtaining accommodation entries in the nature of bogus purchases from the following parties:

M/s. Ali Ispat Pvt. Ltd., Party Amount A) M/s. Siddhivanayak Steel Rs. 22,58,701 B) M/s. Chanchal Tube Corporation Rs. 26,61,795 C) M/s. Suraj Tube Corporation Rs. 30,12,166 D) M/s. Asian Steel Rs. 23,14,286 E) M/s. Century Enterprises Rs. 3.49.800 TOTAL Rs. 1,08,96.748 5. The assessee was also asked to submit copies of purchase invoices of purchases shown to have been made from the alleged hawala parties namely M/s, Siddhivinayak Steel, Chanchal Tube Corporation, Asian Steel, Suraj Tube Corporation & Century Enterprises and also of one of the largest purchase parties for the year under consideration. Though the assessee had submitted the purchase invoices of the purchases shown to have been made from the alleged hawala parties, it had not provided the copy of the purchase invoice of purchase made from the largest purchase party in the A.Y.2010-11. The bill of the largest purchase party was called for in order to compare the invoices of the genuine party and that of the above hawala parries. Since the assessee knew the intent for calling for the bills of the largest purchase party it intentionally did not produce the same during the course of assessment proceedings despite being asked to do so repeatedly. The A.O. found that the invoices of purchases submitted had no required details and telephone number mentioned on the invoices of the alleged hawala parties proving it to be bogus. The office had also issued summons u/s.131 of the Act and notices under M/s. Ali Ispat Pvt. Ltd., section 133(6) of the Act was also issued to the hawala parties but the same had been returned back un-served. Field verification was also carried out at the given address of the alleged hawala concern in which it was learnt that no such concern by the name of M/s. Siddhivinayak Steel, Chanchal Tube Corporation, Asian Steel, Suraj Tube Corporation & Century Enterprises ever existed at the said address or in the vicinity. The A.O. found it was pertinent to mention that Pramod Kumar Singh, Ouehyant Singh, Guresh Singh, Shivanand Singh who were proprietors of Asian Steel, Siddhivinayak Steel, Suraj Tube Corporation and Chanchal Tube Corporation in their statement given on 25th March 2011 before the Sales Tax Authorities had admitted that instead of carrying out business of trading in iron and steel for which they got registered under MVAT Act, 2002, they only issued bills without any corresponding movement of material which was to say that they were engaged in issuing accommodation entry of bogus purchases to various beneficiaries without actual supply of material.

6.

In view of the above discussion, AO added entire amount of purchase in assessee’s income.

7.

By the impugned order, CIT(A) restricted addition to the extent of 12.5% by estimating profit on such alleged purchases after observing that corresponding sales made by the assessee has not been declined by the AO.

8.

Assessee is in further appeal before us against the above order of CIT(A).

M/s. Ali Ispat Pvt. Ltd., 9. We have considered rival contentions and carefully gone through the orders of the authorities below.

10.

From the record, we found that addition has been made by the AO on the basis of information from Sales Tax Department and further enquiry made by him. During the course of assessment proceedings, assessee had submitted copies of Purchase bills, their Ledger copies, Bank Payment Proof i.e. all the documents which were in the possession of the assessee were submitted. All these purchases were for Local Parties and the goods were delivered by the parties directly so the Transport Bills could not be produced. The CIT(A) found that assessee is in the retail business of iron and steel and the corresponding sales made by the assessee has not been declined, accordingly he confirmed the addition by estimating commercial profit of 12.5% as having been earned by the assessee. We found that during the year under consideration assessee had shown GP of 6.19% which is better than GP earned in the earlier two years.

11.

As per learned AR, CIT(A) was not justified in making further addition of 12.5% when the assessee himself has shown G.P. of 6.19%. Learned AR also placed on record the decision of co-ordinate Bench, wherein GP disclosed by the assessee was reduced from the GP of 12.5% as applied by the CIT(A) in the case of Pushpaben R. Shah in & 4464/Mum/2015 orderdated 13/04/2017.

12.

We had carefully gone through the orders of the Tribunal as well as material placed on record. Considering the totality of facts and M/s. Ali Ispat Pvt. Ltd., circumstances of the case vis-à-vis GP shown by the assessee during the year under consideration and also during the earlier two years, we modify the order of CIT(A) and direct the AO to restrict the addition to the extent of 10% of the bogus purchase. We direct accordingly.

13.

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed in part.

More judgments on Section 147

All 49,210 judgments and leading authorities on Section 147 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →