AMIR INDUSTRIES,KOLKATA vs ITO, WARD-34(2), KOLKATA

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, KOLKATA ‘SMC’ BENCH, KOLKATA

Before: DR. MANISH BORAD & PRADIP KUMAR CHOUBEY

order

: May 14th, 2024 ORDER

Per Pradip Kumar Choubey, Judicial Member:

This appeal filed by the assessee pertaining to the Assessment Year (in short ‘AY’) 2012-13 is directed against the order passed u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short the ‘Act’) by ld. Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals)- NFAC, Delhi [in short ld. ‘CIT(A)’] dated 18.12.2023 arising out of the assessment order framed u/s 143(3) read with Section 147 of the Act dated 17.12.2019.

The brief fact of the case of the assessee is that the assessee is a partnership firm engaged in small business of buying and selling goods. The assessee filed its return for AY 2012-13 showing the total income of Rs. 4,11,706/- arising out of profit and gains from business. Assessing authority I.T.A. No.: 298/KOL/2024 Assessment Year: 2012-13 Amir Industries. made an assessment for AY 2012-13 u/s 143(3) read with Section 147 of the Act vide assessment order dated 17.12.2019 whereby he made an addition of Rs. 6,05,426/- on the ground that the going through the accounts it is nowhere found the entry of bogus bill of Rs. 6,05,426/-. It is alleged by the assessing authority that he had some information that one Sh. Manoj Kr. Rameka gave a statement at the office of M/s. Krishna Enterprise at 7, Ganpath Bangla Road, Kolkata that he issued bogus bill for AY 2012-13 to the assessee for Rs. 6,05,426/- under the name of a proprietorship concern, Riddhi Siddhi Enterprises. The Assessing Officer (in short ld. 'AO') disallowed the amount of Rs. 6,05,426/- u/s 68 of the Act and added with the total income of the assessee. The said order was challenged by the assessee before ld. CIT(A) whereas ld. CIT(A) has also confirmed the order of the AO by saying that the appellant firm has failed to furnish any other documentary evidence such as gate pass, transportation builty etc. Being aggrieved by the said order of ld. CIT(A) the assessee preferred the present appeal before us.

Ld. Counsel for the assessee challenges the impugned order thereby submitting that he does not know any Manoj Kr. Rameka and the assessee purchased goods from the selling dealer Riddhi Siddhi Enterprises for Rs. 6,05,426/- during the FY 2011-12 after making enquiry with the departmental data-base of the West Bengal Commercial Taxes directorate about the existence of Riddhi Siddhi Enterprises. It has further been contended by the counsel that the assessee paid price of the goods by making payment through banking channel and made entry of the goods in its stock register that can also be verified as the selling dealer Riddhi Siddhi Enterprises filed its VAT return for the period quarter ending 31st March, 2012 showing its sales of goods for Rs. 4,05,426/- to this appellant assessee. It has further been contended that merely on the basis of the statement made by some person with whom the appellant had no concern, no assessment can be made u/s 147 of the Act. Ld. Counsel for the assessee further submits that assessing authority did wrong by alleging that he (A/O) did not find any entry in the books of accounts of the appellant though in fact the entry of purchase Page 2 of 6 I.T.A. No.: 298/KOL/2024 Assessment Year: 2012-13 Amir Industries. of goods of Rs. 6,05,426/- was made by the assessee in its purchase account maintained in its books of accounts. The further contention of the assessee is that the figure of Rs. 6,05,426/- is the recorded purchase figure of the appellant for the relevant FY 2011-12 and thus, the same was an expenditure of the appellant. Further, the contention of the ld. Counsel for the assessee is that the assessment order dated 17.12.2019 is time barred as it is passed beyond the limitation of time prescribed u/s 143 & 149 of the Act.

Contrary to that it had been argued by ld. D/R that the assessee did not produce any cogent evidence with regard to the amount of Rs. 6,05,426/- .

5. Upon hearing the rival contentions of the ld. Counsels of the respective parties and going over the grounds of appeal

, the following points for determination in this appeal are as follows: A. Whether the ld. appellate authorities were justified in dismissing the assessee’s appeal only on the allegation that the appellant could not prove the genuineness of the purchase. B. Whether the issuance of notice u/s 143 read with Section 149 of the Act is barred by the limitation.

5. A.1. From perusal of the order of ld. CIT(A) it appears to us that the appellant firm submitted the copy of bills issued by Riddhi Siddhi Enterprises along with detail of payment made through banking channel to the above party. We find that appellant has made payment through banking channel. The contention of the ld. Counsel for the assessee is that he does not know any Manoj Kr. Rameka and he purchased goods from the selling dealer Riddhi Siddhi Enterprises for Rs. 6,05,426/- during the FY 2011-12. Appellant has filed the copy of VAT return filed by the selling dealer Riddhi Siddhi Enterprises for the period quarter ending 31st March, 2012 which is reproduced as under:

I.T.A. No.: 298/KOL/2024 Assessment Year: 2012-13 Amir Industries.

ANNEXURE-B-PART II (Details of sales of goods to registered dealers within West Bengal in excess of rupees fifty thousand during the return period) Section 1………………………………………………………………………………………………………….

No of tax Name of Total sales invoice, Registration registered during the Invoice, Total tax Full postal certificate Major group of dealer to whom period bill, Involved address No.,if any (11 commodity goods were (inclusive cash, Rs digit) sold VAT) (Rs.) memo, receive d MISCELLANEOUS AMRIT KOLKATA 19490997059 1160992.0 TAXABLE 27 44654.00 ENTERPRISE 0 GOODS ARVINDAM MISCELLANEOUS MINERALS & KOLKATA 19301583025 72800.00 TAXABLE 2 2800.00 CHEMICALS GOODS A.S.SALES & MISCELLANEOUS DURGAPU EXPORTS PVT 19801009059 56056.00 TAXABLE 1 2156.00 R LTD GOODS A.K.BEARING KOLKATA 19292567069 122564.00 MISCELLANEOUS & TOOLS 5 4714.00 TAXABLE GOODS STORES ADITYA MISCELLANEOUS MINERALS & KOLKATA 19550300046 346840.00 TAXABLE 5 13340.00 ALLIED IND GOODS MISCELLANEOU 23286.0 KOLKATA 1948048109 AMIR IND 605426.00 S TAXABLE 5 0 5 GOODS AWASTHI TEXTILE HOOGHLY 19733274056 365976.00 MISCELLANEOUS 3 14076.00 CONSULTANTS TAXABLE GOODS & AGENTS BALAJI MISCELLANEOUS INDUSTRIALS KOLKATA 19460259020 2017496.0 TAXABLE 5 77596.00 ENTERPRISES 0 GOODS PVT LTD MISCELLANEOUS B.M.ENGG KOLKATA | 19410297036 132607.00 TAXABLE 8 5100.00 WORKS GOODS BENGAL MISCELLANEOUS FERRO & KOLKATA | 19300172063 121680.00 TAXABLE 3 4680.00 ALLIED GOODS PRODUCTS 5. A.2. The copy of the VAT return filed by the selling dealer reveals the total sales during the period Rs. 6,05,426/-. The copy of VAT goes to establish the case of the appellant that he made a genuine purchase worth of Rs. 6,05,426/- by purchasing goods from a living and existing selling dealer. It is further important to mention here that the said transaction in the books of Page 4 of 6 I.T.A. No.: 298/KOL/2024 Assessment Year: 2012-13 Amir Industries. accounts making payment to the selling dealer against such purchase through banking channels. We further find that the appellant uploaded the VAT return filed by selling dealer showing purchase of the assessee, uploaded documents of bank payments made to the selling dealer, tax invoices issued by the selling dealer, entry of purchase in the books of accounts etc. We find support in the arguments of the ld. Counsel for the assessee that a buying dealer cannot have documents more than this to prove a genuine purchase.

5. A.3. All the aforesaid facts go to support the case of the appellant that the purchase of the appellant was a genuine purchase and the allegation of bogus purchase is totally wrong and illegal. Merely on the basis of the statement made by some person whom the appellant does not know, no assessment can be made u/s 147 of the Act. Accordingly, this issue hereby allowed in favour of the assessee.

B.1. It is an admitted fact that assessment year was 2012-13 and assessing authority issued a notice u/s 148 of the Act dated 28.03.2019 after more than six years from the end of relevant AY 2012-13. Therefore, we are of the view that assessment proceedings carried out u/s 143(3) read with Section 147 of the Act is barred by limitation.

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed. Order pronounced in the open Court on 14th May, 2024. Sd/- Sd/- [Manish Borad] [Pradip Kumar Choubey] Accountant Member Judicial Member Dated: 14.05.2024 Bidhan (P.S.)

I.T.A. No.: 298/KOL/2024 Assessment Year: 2012-13 Amir Industries. Copy of the order forwarded to:

1. 1. Amir Industries, 5/1, Clive Row, Burrabazar, Kolkata, West Bengal, 700 001.

2. ITO, Ward-34(2), Kolkata. 3. CIT(A)-NFAC, Delhi. 4. CIT- 5. CIT(DR), Kolkata Benches, Kolkata.

AMIR INDUSTRIES,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD-34(2), KOLKATA