JAGDISH MANILAL DESAI,SURAT vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, SURAT

Without prejudice to the above, ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that the assessee’s case is related to Rajendra Jain Group cases, and in these cases, the Surat ITAT Bench, is taking consistently the decision to sustain the addition at the rate of 6% of bogus purchases. In the case of Bhanwarlal Jain, Rajendra Jain and Gautam Jains’ cases, this Tribunal has sustained the addition at the rate of 6% of bogus purchases, therefore she argued the addition may be sustained up to 6% of bogus purchases.

However, on the other hand, Learned Senior Departmental Representative (ld. Sr. DR) for the Revenue submitted that addition made by the Assessing Officer may be sustained as the assessee made bogus purchases. However, ld. Sr. DR also stated that the Surat Bench of ITAT is upholding the addition in case of bogus purchases, at the rate of 6%, therefore in the assessee’s case under consideration, the addition may be sustained at the rate of 6% of the bogus purchases.

I have heard both the parties and carefully gone through the submissions put forth on behalf of the assessee along with the documents furnished and the case laws relied upon, and perused the facts of the case including the findings of the ld. CIT(A) and other material brought on record. I note that Learned Counsel for the assessee submitted that the present appeal is squarely covered by the order of the Tribunal, wherein the Tribunal has sustained the addition at the rate of 6% of bogus purchases. Therefore, I see no reasons to take any other view of the matter than the view so taken by the ITA.462/SRT/2023/AY.2007-08 Jagdish Manilal Desai (HUF) Division Bench of this Tribunal in the case of Pankaj K. Chaudhary, in order dated 27.09.2021.In this order, the Tribunal has inter alia observed as follows: “12. We have heard the submission of ld.CIT-DR for the Revenue and the ld. Authorised Representative (AR) of the assessee. We have also gone through the various documentary evidences furnished by assessee. The ld. CIT-DR for the Revenue supported the order of AO. The ld. CIT-DR submits that Investigation Wing, Mumbai made a search on Bhanwarlal Jain Group. During the search and after search, the Investigation Wing made a thorough investigation and concluded that Bhanwarlal Jain Group and his associates including his sons were indulging in managing about 70 benami concerns. The benami concerns were engaged in providing accommodation entries. The assessee is one of the beneficiaries of such accommodation entries. In the transaction of accommodation entries, the documentary evidences are created in such a way, so that the bogus transaction is looks like genuine transaction. In bogus transaction, the fabricated evidences are always maintained perfectly. The assessee has obtained accommodation entry only to inflate the expenses and to reduce the ultimate profit. No stocks of diamonds were found at the time of search on Bhanwarlal Jain Group. The assessee has shown a very meagre gross profit (GP) @ 0.78% and not net profit (NP) at 0.02%. The ld. CIT(A) restricted the addition to the extent of 12.5% which is on the lower side. The ld. CIT-DR for the revenue prayed that disallowance made by the AO may be upheld or in alternative submitted that it may restricted at least @ 25%, keeping in view that the NP declared by the assessee is extremely on lower side.

On the validity of reopening, the ld.CIT-DR for the revenue submits that the AO received credible information about the accommodation entry provided by Bhanwarlal Jain Group. The assessee is one of the beneficiaries, who had availed accommodation entries from such hawala trader. At the time of recording reasons, the mere suspicious about the accommodation entry is sufficient as held by Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court in various cases. To support his submissions, the ld.CIT-DR relied upon the decision;  Pushpak Bullion (P) Ltd Vs DCIT [2017] 85 taxmann.com 84(Gujarat High Court),  Peass Industrial Engineers (P) Ltd Vs DCIT [2016] 73 taxmann.com 185 (Gujarat High Court  ITO Vs Purushttom Dass Bangur [1997] 90 Taxman 541 (SC) and  Mayank Diamond Private Limited (2014) (11) TMI 812 (Gujarat High Court).  AGR Investment Vs Additional Commissioner 197 Taxman 177 (Delhi) and  Chuharmal Vs CIT [1998] 38 Taxman 190 (SC).

On account of additions of bogus purchases, the ld.AR submits that in the original assessment, the assessee filed its complete details of purchases to prove the genuineness of expenses. The AO accepted the same in the assessment order passed under section 143(3) on 10.03.2009. During re-assessment, the assessee again furnished complete details about the genuineness of purchases. The assessee filed confirmation purchases invoices, accounts of the parties, bank statement of assessee showing transaction to the banking channel. The AO has not made any comment on the documentary evidence furnished by assessee. The AO solely relied upon the statement of third party and the report of Investigation Wing. The report of wing and the statement of Bhanwarlal Jain were not provided to the assessee. The AO has not disputed the sales of assessee. No sale is possible in absence of purchase. The books of accounts were not rejected. The AO made the disallowance of entire purchases. The assessing officer not provided cross examination of the alleged hawala dealers. The disallowances sustained by the Ld. CIT(A) @ 12.5% of the impugned purchases, is on higher side and deserve to be deleted in total. The ld.AR of the assessee submits that entire purchases shown by assessee are genuine. In without prejudice and alternative submissions, the Ld. AR for the assessee submits that in alternative submission, the disallowance may be sustained on reasonable basis. To support his various submission, the ld.AR for the assessee is relied upon case laws: 1 M/s Andaman Timber industries VsCommissioner of Central Excise, CIVIL APPEAL NO. 4228 OF 2006 (Supreme Court) 2 CIT vs. Indrajit Singh Suri [2013] 33 taxmann.com 281 (Gujarat) 3 Albers Diamonds Pvt. Ltd. Vs ITO 1(1)(1), Surat &1180/AHD/2017 4 The PCIT-5 vs. M/s. Shodiman Investments Pvt. Ltd. TTANO. 1297 OF 2015 (Bombay High Court) 5 ShilpiJewellers Pvt. Ltd. vs. Union of India &Ors. WRIT PETITION NO. 3540 OF 2018 (Bombay High Court) 6 CIT in Vs. Mohmed Juned Dadani 355 ITR 172 (Gujarat)

We have considered the submissions of the parties and have gone through the order of the lower authorities. We have also deliberated on each and every case laws relied by both the parties. We have also examined the financial statement of all the assessee(s) consisting of computation of income and audit report. We have also gone through the documentary evidences furnished in all cases. Ground No.1 in assessee’s appeal relates to the validity of reopening. The ld AR for the assessee vehemently argued that the AO reopened the case of the assessee on the basis of third party information, and without making any preliminary investigation, which was vague about the alleged accommodation entry by Bhanwarlal Jain Group. And that there was no specific information about the accommodation entry availed by the assessee. There is no live link between the reasons recorded qua the assessee. We find that the assessee has raised objection against the validity of the reopening before the AO. The objections of the assessee was duly disposed by AO in his order dated 09.02.2015. The assessee raised ground of appeal

Ground No. 2 in assessee’s appeal and the grounds of appeal raised by the revenue are interconnected, which relates to restricting the disallowance of bogus purchases to the extent of 12.5%. The AO made of 100% of purchases shown from the hawala dealers/ entry provider namely Bhanwarlal Jain. We find that the AO while making additions of 100%, of disputed purchases solely relied on the report of the investigation wing Mumbai. No independent investigation was carried by the AO. The AO has not disputed the sale of the assessee. The AO made no comment on the evidences furnished by the assessee. We further find that ld CIT(A), while considering the submissions of the assessee accepted the lapses on the part of the AO and noted that no sale is possible in absence of purchases. The Books of the assessee was not rejected by the AO. The ld CIT(A) on further examination of the facts and various legal submissions find that Ahmedabad Tribunal in Bholanath Poly Fab Private Limited (supra) held that in the such cases the addition of bogus purchases was sustained to the extent of 12%, on the observation that the assessee may have made purchases from elsewhere and obtained the bills from impugned supplier to inflate Gross Profit Rate. The ld CIT(A) by considering the overall facts, concluded that the 100% disallowance of purchase is not justified. We also find that the ld.CIT(A) also considered the decision of jurisdictional High Court in Mayank Diamonds Pvt. Ltd. (supra) and compared the fact of the present case with the facts in Mayank Diamonds Pvt Ltd (supra) and noted that assessee in that case was also engaged in the trading of polished diamonds. The ld CIT(A) noted that in that case the AO made disallowance of entire bogus purchase and on first appeal before CIT(A) the disallowances were maintained. However, the Tribunal gave partial relief to the assessee directing to sustain the addition @12% of such bogus purchases. And on further appeal, the Hon'ble High Court sustained Gross Profit Rate @ 5% being average rate of profit in industry.

We have seen that during the financial year under consideration the assessee has shown total turnover of Rs. 66,09,62,458/-. The assessee has shown Gross Profit @ .78% and net Profit @ .02% (page 11 of paper Book). The assessee while filing the return of income has declared taxable income of Rs.1,81,840/- only. We are conscious of the facts that dispute before us is only with regard of the disputed purchases of Rs, 4.34 Crore, which was shown to have purchased from the entity managed by Bhanwarlal Jain Group. During the search action on Bhanwarlal Jain no stock of goods/ material was found to the investigation party. Bhanwarlal Jain while filing return of income has offered commission income (entry provider). Before us, the ld CIT-DR for the revenue vehemently submitted that the ratio of decision of Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in Mayank Diamond Private Limited (supra) is directly applicable on the facts of the present case. We find that in Mayank Diamonds the Hon’ble High Court restricted the additions to 5% of GP. We have seen that in Mayank Diamonds P Ltd (supra), the assessee had declared GP @ 1.03% on turnover of Rs. 1.86 Crore. The disputed transaction in the said case was Rs. 1.68 Crore. However, in the present case the assessee has declared the GP @ 0.78%. It is settled law that under Income-tax, the tax authorities are not entitled to tax the entire transaction, but only the income component of the disputed transaction, to prevent the possibility of revenue leakage. Therefore, considering overall facts and circumstances of the present case, we are of the view that disallowances @ 6% of impugned purchases / disputed purchases would be sufficient to meet the possibility of revenue leakage. In the result the ground No. 2 of appeal raised by the assessee is partly allowed and the grounds of appeal

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed.