THE ITO, WARD-3(1)(5),, SURAT vs. SHRI MANISH AGARWAL,, SURAT

आदेश / O R D E R PER DR. A. L. SAINI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER: Captioned cross appeals filed by the Assessee and Revenue, pertaining to assessment year (AY) i.e. 2008-09, are directed against the separate orders passed by the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeals)-3, Surat,[‘CIT(A)’ for short] dated 30.08.2017 and 31.08.2017, respectively, which in turn arise out of separate orders passed by the Assessing Officer under section 143(3) r.w.s 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short ‘the Act’), dated 19.02.2016 and 29.02.2016 respectively.

3.At the outset, Ld. Authorized Representative (AR) for the assessee submits that assessee has challenged the addition made by the assessing officer based on validity of re-opening as well as on merits. The Ld AR submits that reasons recorded by the assessing officer are defective therefore reassessment order made by the AO may be quashed. The Ld. AR of the assessee submits that for the year under consideration, the Assessing Officer made addition @ 25% of the disputed / bogus purchases. These purchases are from Shri Bhawarlal Jain Group. The Ld. AR drew our attention that grounds of appeal raised by assessee, on merits, are covered by the Decision of the Co-ordinate Bench of this Tribunal, vide order dated 27.09.2021 in the case of Pankaj K. Choudhary & others, wherein the Co- ordinate Bench has sustained the addition @ 6%of bogus purchases. The Ld. AR contended that all these appeals are covered by the afore-said decision of the Co- ordinate Bench, in the case of Pankaj K. Choudhary & others (supra).

5.We have heard both the parties and perused the materials available on record. We note that issue involved in these appeals, are covered by the judgment of the Co-ordinate Bench in the case of Pankaj Choudhary in for AY.2007-08, order dated 27.09.2021, wherein the Co-ordinate Bench held as follows: “9. On merit, the ld.CIT(A) after discussing the submission of assessee held that AO has not discussed about any details of books of accounts, documents, stock register produced by assessee during the assessment. The AO neither examined nor found any defect in the document to discredit the same. The assessee has produced day to day stock register, details of purchase and sale. The purchases made during the year are sold during the year as seen from the trading account. If the impugned purchases are treated as bogus, then the stock in hand will become negative from 26.06.2006 onwards and no sale is possible in absence of purchases. The AO relied on the statement of Bhanwarlal Jain recorded by Investigation Wing against, copy of purchase bill, copy of bank statement, showing payment, day to day stock register, incoming and outgoing diamonds and daily stock tally, confirmation of the impugned parties from whom the said purchases has been made, thus, the assessee practically furnished all possible evidences in support of his claim for purchases. Moreover all the payment are made by bank account. The AO has made no comments about these documentary evidences. On the aforesaid observation, the ld.CIT(A) concluded that assessment order suffer from incomplete investigation, lack of marshalling of all relevant facts and procedural loop holes. Similarly, the ld. CIT(A) also observed that there is no denying circumstances under which statement were made by Bhanwarlal Jain and the elaborate modus-operandi unearthed by Investigation Wing, Mumbai, which has created sufficient suspicion regarding the purchase made by the assessee. The said parties are assessed with Central Circle, Mumbai where they are treated as “entry provider” and assessed accordingly.

Gross Profit Rate of 5%, which is average rate of profit in industry. The ld. CIT(A) further held that in some other similar cases though he has sustain 5% of Gross Profit Rate considering the fact that where Gross Profit shown by assessee is more than 5%. However, in the present case, the assessee has merely shown Gross Profit Rate only at 0.78% of turnover, accordingly, the ld.CIT(A) was of the view that disallowance of 12.5% of impugned purchases/bogus purchases would be reasonable to meet the end of justice, hence the disallowance was restricted to 12.5% of the impugned purchase.

 Peass Industrial Engineers (P) Ltd Vs DCIT [2016] 73 taxmann.com 185 (Gujarat High Court),  ITO Vs PurushttomDassBangur [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).

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) 7 Micro Inks Pvt. Ltd. Vs. ACIT [2017] 79 taxmann.com 153 (Gujarat) 8 Shakti Karnawat Vs. ITO - 2(3)(8), Surat ITA 1504/Ahd/2017 and 1381 /Ahd/2017 9 Asian Paints Ltd. Vs. DCIT, [2008] 296 ITR 90 (Bombay) 10 PCIT, Surat 1 Vs. Tejua Rohitkumar Kapadia [2018] 94 taxmann.com 325 (SC) 11 The PCIT-17 vs. M/s Mohommad Haji Adam & Co. ITA NO. 1004 OF 2016(Bombay High Court) 12 Pankaj Kanwarlal Jain HUF Vs. ITO 2(3)(8) Surat ITA.No.269/SRT/2017 15. An 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 , 256 & 253/SRT/2017 A.Y. 08-09 Manish Agarwal & Ramprakash V Vijayvergiya. 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: 16. In the rejoinder submissions the ld. CIT-DR for the revenue submits that that rigour of the rules of evidence contained in the Evidence Act is not applicable before the tax authorities. It was submitted that the ratio of various case laws relied by the ld. AR for the assessee is not applicable on the facts of the present cases. 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.

before ld CIT(A) while assailing the order of AO on reopening. The ld CIT(A) while considering the ground of appeal against the reopening held that the AO has received report from investigation wing Mumbai, which indicate that the assessee is beneficiary of the accommodation entry operators. The accommodation entry provider admitted before investigation wing that he has given such entry to various persons; based on such report the AO has reason to believe that the income of the assessee has escaped assessment and thus the action of AO in reopening is justified.

18. We find that the Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court in Peass Industrial Engineers (P) Ltd Vs DCIT (supra) while considering the validity of similar notice of reopening, which was also issued on the basis of information of , 256 & 253/SRT/2017 A.Y. 08-09 Manish Agarwal & Ramprakash V Vijayvergiya. investigation wing that they have searched a person who is engaged in providing accommodation entries, held that where after scrutiny assessment the assessing officer received information from the investigation wing that well known entry operators of the country provided bogus entries to various beneficiaries, and assessee was one of such beneficiary, assessing officer was justified in re-opening assessment. Further similar view was taken by Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court in Pushpak Bullion (P) Ltd Vs DCIT (supra). Therefore, respectfully following the order of Hon’ble High Court, we find that the assessing officer validly assumed the jurisdiction for making re-opening under section 147 on the basis of information of investigation wing Mumbai. So far as other submissions of the ld AR for the assessee that there is no live link of the reasons recorded, we find that the Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court in Peass Industrial Engineers (P) Ltd clearly held that when assessing officer received information from the investigation wing that two well known entry operators of the country provided bogus entries to various beneficiaries, and assessee was one of such beneficiary, assessing officer was justified. Hence, the ground No. 1 in assessee’s appeal is dismissed.

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.

20. Now adverting to the facts of the present case, the ld.CIT(A) held that in some other similar cases; though he had sustain 5% of Gross Profit Rate, considering the fact that where Gross Profit shown by those assessee’s are more than 5%. However, in the present case, the assessee has merely shown Gross , 256 & 253/SRT/2017 A.Y. 08-09 Manish Agarwal & Ramprakash V Vijayvergiya.

Profit Rate only at 0.78% of turnover, accordingly, the ld. CIT(A) was of the view that disallowance of 12.5% of impugned purchases/bogus purchases would be reasonable to meet the end of justice.

6.As the issue is squarely covered by the decision of the Coordinate Bench, in the case of Pankaj Choudhary (supra), and there is no change in facts and law and the ld Counsel is unable to produce any material to controvert the aforesaid findings of the Coordinate Bench(supra). We find no reason to interfere in the said order of the Coordinate Bench, therefore, respectfully following the binding precedent of the Coordinate Bench, we sustain the addition @ 6% of impugned purchases.

beyond the period of four years in the case of an assessee firm; and had held that in case of acquiring fresh information specific in nature and reliable, relating to the concluded assessment, which went to falsify the statement made by the assessee at the time of original assessment and, therefore, he would be permitted under the law to draw fresh inference from such facts and material. The Court also went to an extent of saying that there are two distinct and different situations where the transaction itself on the basis of subsequent information is found to be bogus transaction and in such event, mere disclosure of the transaction cannot be said to be true and full disclosure and the Income-tax Officer would have jurisdiction to reopen the concluded assessment The Apex Court in the case of Phul Ghand Bajrang Lal (supra), observed as following: "...one has to look to the purpose and intent of the provisions. One of the purposes of Section 147 appears to be to ensure that a party cannot get away by willfully making a false or untrue statement at the time of original assessment and when that falsity comes to notice to turn around and say 'you accepted my lie, now your hands are tied and you can do nothing'. It would, be travesty of justice to allow the assessee that latitude."

Thus, based on these facts, we dismiss the ground raised (challenging the reassessment u/s 147) by the assessee.