ITO 18(3)(1), MUMBAI vs. BILAL AHMED ABDUL RAUF, MUMBAI

This appeal has been filed by the Revenue against the order of Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals)-29, Mumbai, dated 30.05.2014 for A.Y. 2010-11 on following ground:

A.Y. 2010-11 [ITO Vs. Bilal Ahmed Abdul Rauf] Page 2

“1. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law , the Ld CIT (A) erred in deleting the addition of Rs.49,06,446/- made on account of bogus purchases.

3. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in deleting the addition of Rs. 49.06446/- without appreciating the fact that the assessee has failed to discharge the onus of producing any corroborative evidences viz, details of delivery of goods such as transportation, lorry details - inward and outward, delivery challan etc. to prove that the purchases are genuine.”

2. Brief facts of the case are that AO in assessment order made addition of Rs.49,06,446/- on account of bogus purchases. In appeal the CIT(A) granted relief to the assessee, same has been before us inter alia submitting that deletion of addition of Rs.49,06,446/- made by AO on account of bogus purchases were not justified, accordingly the order of the CIT(A) be quashed and that of the AO be restored. On the other hand, learned AR supported the order of the CIT(A).

2.1 We find that while making addition Assessing Officer has material on record to suggest bogus purchases amounting to Rs.49,06,446/- from M/s. Maruti Steel and M/s. Shiv Industries. In fact while treating the above purchases as bogus, the Assessing Officer has simply relied on the statements given by these parties before the Sales Tax Authorities. Such statements recorded by Sales Tax Authorities does not contain any specific reference to the assessee that the sales made to A.Y. 2010-11 [ITO Vs. Bilal Ahmed Abdul Rauf] Page 3 him by the parties in question were bogus. On the contrary, the evidence filed by the assessee before the Assessing Officer, such as admission in the statement recorded u/s.131 of these parties before the Assessing Officer that the sale were afftected by them to the assessee, their copies of account in the books of the assessee, deliver challans, bank statements, and the payments made through the banking channels are sufficient evidences to proves that the purchases are genuine and in order. It is not a case of AO that the payments against these purchases were in cash. All the payments have been made through cheques and debited in the bank account of the appellant in the names of the parties concerned. Further it is not the case of the AO that he has made further investigation to establish that these payments made to the parties in question were withdrawn from their accounts and flown back to the assessee. In absence of any such evidence placed on record, purchases made from these parties or the payments made to them could be treated as bogus. Therefore, we are not inclined to interfere with the order of the CIT(A), we uphold the same.