SHREE KRISHNA ENGINEERING,HOWRAH vs. I.T.O., WARD - 47(7), KOLKATA

Brief facts of the case are that the assessee is a firm. An information received from the DDIT(Inv.), Unit-4(2), Kolkata that one Shri Sanjiw Singh, son of Shri Kashinath Singh having office address at 109, Janarayan Babu Anand Dutta Lane, Howrah- 1 (A.Y. 2012-2013) Shree Krishna Engineering 711101, has been carrying on business of bogus billing and accommodation entries without actual sale of goods issuing mere bogus bills to the various persons. Thereafter a survey was conducted under section 133A of the Act at the premises of the above said address on 31.03.2016. A statement was recorded and it is seen from the statement of Shri Sanjiw Kumar Singh that he admitted that he and his family members are the Directors of various Companies such as Tarama Ferrous & Non-Ferrous Trading Company Pvt. Limited, Rajputana Vanijya Private Limited, Durga Commodeal Pvt. Limited etc. These companies are merely paper companies having no actual business activities. He further stated that these companies are used for providing accommodation entries in the form of bogus billing, bogus share capital, unsecured loan, sale of shares etc. to the various beneficiaries/persons in view of the commission. Subsequently the case was reopened under section 147 on account of information received by DDIT (Inv.) according to the bogus purchase bills to the tax papers etc. In response to the said notice, the assessee produced the books of accounts under the relevant documents issued under section 142(1) of the Income Tax Act. The books of accounts of the assessee have been perused by the ld. Assessing Officer. The ld. Assessing Officer has observed that the assessee-firm had purchased Iron & Steel from different companies. The assessee- firm was asked to substantiate the genuineness of the purchases. The assessee furnished ledger accounts, invoice, delivery challans and bank statement, but no proof of transportation and lorry receipt was filed. The onus of proving the genuineness of the transaction of purchases lies with the assessee, but the assessee (A.Y. 2012-2013) Shree Krishna Engineering failed to substantiate the same. Since the genuineness of the transactions has been established, the ld. Assessing Officer treated the bogus purchases of Rs.1,35,557/- as unexplained and added back to the total income of the assessee. Aggrieved with the order of ld. Assessing Officer, the assessee preferred an appeal before the ld. CIT(Appeals).

Being aggrieved, the assessee preferred an appeal before the ld. CIT(Appeals). The ld. Addl./JCIT(Appeals) after considering the submission of the assessee, dismissed the appeal filed by the assessee.

On being aggrieved, the assessee preferred an appeal before the ITAT. None appeared on behalf of the assessee inspite of receipt of the notices issued by the Tribunal.

I have heard the ld. D.R. It was the submission of the ld. D.R. that the assessee has not filed satisfactory evidence before the ld. Assessing officer as well as ld. Addl./JCIT(Appeals). Therefore, the ld. Assessing Officer treated the unexplained expenditure of Rs.1,35,557/- as disallowed and added back to the total income of the assessee. He further argued that the assessee neither before the ld. CIT(Appeals) nor before the ITAT filed any evidence to substantiate its claim. Therefore, in the absence of satisfactory evidence before any of the authorities, the appeal of the assessee is liable to be dismissed.