“bogus purchases”

DisallowancesSection 69CSection 69C9,532 judgments

The decision most relied on for bogus purchases is CIT v. Simit P. Sheth (356 ITR 451), cited in 1,465 judgments on BharatTax.

Leading authorities on bogus purchases

CIT v. Simit P. Sheth

356 ITR 451 · 2013 · High Court

1,465

citing judgments

Additions for alleged bogus purchases should be restricted to the profit element, not the entire turnover. The profit element is often estimated at 12.5% of the purported bogus purchases.

CIT v. Bholanath Poly Fab. Pvt. Ltd.

355 ITR 290 · 2013 · High Court

712

citing judgments

If an assessee makes purchases from bogus parties, but the underlying goods are genuinely acquired and sold, only the profit margin embedded in such purchases, and not the entire value of the bogus purchases, should be added to the assessee's income.

Sanjay Oilcake Industries v. CIT

316 ITR 274 · 2009 · High Court

460

citing judgments

In cases of alleged bogus or unverifiable purchases, rather than disallowing the entire purchase value, a reasonable profit element or a proportionate percentage of the purchases should be added back to the assessee's income.

Vijay Proteins Ltd. v. Asst. CIT

58 ITD 428 · 1996 · ITAT

430

citing judgments

Where purchases are found to be non-genuine or fictitious, a reasonable disallowance of 25% of such purchases or the peak credit, whichever is higher, can be made. This is applied to address unexplained expenditure under Section 69C when actual goods are likely procured from the grey market.

CIT v. Odeon Builders Pvt. ltd.

418 ITR 315 · 2019 · Supreme Court

408

citing judgments

Income tax additions cannot be sustained merely on the basis of uncorroborated statements or allegations. The Revenue must bring on record sufficient material and allow the assessee to produce evidence to prove such additions.

CIT v. Nikunj Exim Enterprises Pvt. Ltd.

372 ITR 619 · 2015 · High Court

391

citing judgments

Transactions defying human probability cannot be applied to isolated purchases if sales are accepted as genuine, and purchases cannot be disallowed without considering the entire transaction and documentary evidence. Failure to produce parties in an assessment proceeding may not be fatal to the assessee.

Nikunj Eximp Enterprises v. CIT

216 Taxmann 171 · 2013 · High Court

325

citing judgments

Purchases may be treated as genuine even if the purchase parties are untraceable or not available for verification, as long as there is no specific evidence from the parties themselves denying the transactions or proving them to be bogus.

CIT v. Shyam R. Pawar

54 Taxmann.com 108 · 2015 · High Court

279

citing judgments

Transactions involving the purchase and sale of shares cannot be considered bogus where the assessee provides documentary evidence, unless the revenue brings substantial evidence on record to reject such proof. This principle is consistently applied in cases concerning claims of bogus long-term capital gains arising from penny stock transactions.

Judgments citing bogus purchases

ITO, Ward 22(2), Kolkata vs. M/S. K.B. Medical Agency, Kolkata

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue in I

ITA 1209/KOL/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata08 Feb 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara, Jm & Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita Nos.1209,1210&1211/Kol/2017 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years :2010-11 To 2012-13

For Appellant: Shri S.M. Surana, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Saurabh Kumar, Addl. CIT DR

Section 147

Section 40A(3) of the Act. 4. The ld. CIT(A) erred in confirming the addition of Rs.4,30,819/- on account of bogus purchases (A.Y. 2013-14) 5. The ld. CIT(A) erred in confirming the addition of Rs. 38,750/- on account of reconciled credit notes for goods ... raised by the assessee is given below: 4.The ld. CIT(A) erred in confirming the addition of Rs. 4,30,819/- on account of bogus purchases (A.Y. 2013-14) 37. Brief facts qua the issue are that from the impounded documents it was found that the purchase

Abdul Rehman Abdul Rauf Choudhary, Pune vs. Income-Tax Officer, Ward - 9(1), Pune

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 174/PUN/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Pune07 Feb 2019AY 2011-12

For Appellant: Shri Sharad VazeFor Respondent: Shri Rajesh Gawali

Section 144Section 148Section 69C

reported in [2013] 260 Taxman 171 (Bom HC) wherein the Hon’ble High Court deleted the addition made on account of bogus purchase where the books of accounts have not been rejected and sales not been doubted. Alternatively the appellant requested for addition of gross profit on the purchases ... order of CIT(A). 4. The Appellant prays that the addition of Rs.19,00,418/- made by Assessing Officer on account of bogus purchases be deleted. 5. The appellant craves leave to add, alter, amend, vary and/or withdraw any or all the above grounds of Appeal.” 3. Briefly, the relevant

Abdul Rehman Abdul Rauf Choudhary, Pune vs. Income-Tax Officer, Ward - 9(1), Pune

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 173/PUN/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Pune07 Feb 2019AY 2010-11

For Appellant: Shri Sharad VazeFor Respondent: Shri Rajesh Gawali

Section 144Section 148Section 69C

Vasaram Prajapati, Mumbai vs. ITO 19(3)(5), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of assessee is dismissed

ITA 3260/MUM/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Feb 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri

Section 143(3)Section 147

order of CIT(A) directing the AO in restrict the addition made by AO being estimating profit percentage at the rate of 7.05 % on bogus purchases. For this assessee has raised the following ground: - “1. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the learned

Kokilkumar M.Siyal, Mumbai vs. ITO 18(2)(1), Mmbai

In the result, the appeal of assessee is partly allowed

ITA 3206/MUM/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Feb 2019AY 2011-12

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh

For Appellant: Shri Nimesh Chothani, ARFor Respondent: Shri

Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 147

appeals of assessee is against the order of CIT(A) confirming the addition made by AO applying the profit rate at 12.5% of the bogus purchase. For this assessee has raised identically worded grounds in both the years except the quantum. The facts and circumstances are exactly identical in both ... adopted. Given the facts and circumstances of the instant case, I find it 5 reasonable to estimate the gross profit on the alleged bogus purchases at 12.5%. 4.3.2. The action of the AO in making an addition of 12.5% of the alleged bogus purchases is confirmed. This ground of appeal

Koilkumar M. Siyal, Mumabi vs. ITO 18(2)(1), Mumbai`

In the result, the appeal of assessee is partly allowed

ITA 3205/MUM/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Feb 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh

For Appellant: Shri Nimesh Chothani, ARFor Respondent: Shri

Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 147

Deepak P. Varyani, Mumbai vs. ITO 24(1)(5), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of assessee is partly allowed

ITA 3191/MUM/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Feb 2019AY 2011-12

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh

For Appellant: Shri Mukesh A. Advani, ARFor Respondent: Shri

Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 147

order of CIT(A) directing the AO to restrict the addition made by AO by estimating profit percentage at the rate of 12.5 % on bogus purchases. 3. Briefly stated facts are that the assessee engaged in the business of manufacturing various precession items and sell it to Larsen & Turbo ... returned income of the assessee. Aggrieved, assessee preferred the appeal before CIT(A), who restricted the disallowance at 12.5% of the bogus purchases by observing in para 4.14 by following the decision of Hon’ble Gujarat High court in the case of CIT vs. Smith P. Seth

M/S.Super Tech Industries, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer 19(3)(4), Mumbai

In the result, this appeal filed by the assessee stands partly allowed

ITA 2364/MUM/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Feb 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya, Am & Shri Ram Lal Negi, Jm M/S. Super Tech Industries, Ito-19(3)(4) Room No.12, 1St Floor, Room No. 210, 2Nd Floor, 3Rd Kumbharwada Lane, Matru Mandir, Grant Road, Vs. 164, Ld. Departmental Representative. Mumbai-400 007 M. G. Mahimtura Marg, Mumbai-400 004 Pan/Gir No. Abifs 8776 N (Appellant) : (Respondent) Appellant By : Shri N. G. Rao : Shri C. S. Anjaria Respondent By : 15.01.2019 Date Of Hearing Date Of Pronouncement : 04.02.2019 O R D E R Per Shamim Yahya, A. M.:

For Appellant: Shri N. G. RaoFor Respondent: 15.01.2019

Section 148

learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-52, Mumbai (‘ld.CIT(A) for short) dated 04.01.2018 has erred in sustaining 12.5% disallowance on account of bogus purchases amounting to Rs.6,20,220/- for the assessment year (A.Y. 2009-10). 2. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee is engaged ... delivery challan, transport receipts, octroi receipts, weigh-bridge slip, etc. could not be submitted by the assessee. However, the assessee could tally the bogus purchases with the corresponding sales. Therefore, the AO concluded that the assessee had made the said purchases from the grey market. Thereafter, the AO proceeded

Shantilal B. Parekh, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer-3(4), Kalyan

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 4262/MUM/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Feb 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपीऱ सं./I.T.A. No.4261 & 4262/Mum/2017 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2009-10 & 2010-11) बिाम/ Shri Shantilal B. Parekh Ito-3(4), Flat No. 24, 6Th Floor, 2Nd Floor, Rani Mansion, Gaurav Apt. , Murbad Road, V. Sarvoday Nagar, Kalyan(W)- 421301 Nahur Village Road, Mulund (W), Mumbai-400080 स्थायी ऱेखा सं./ Pan: Akcpp9255C Assessee By: Mr. Divendra H. Jain Revenue By : Shri. S.K Jain सुनवाई की तारीख /Date Of Hearing : 06.11.2018 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 04.02.2019 आदेश / O R D E R Per Ramit Kochar: These Are Two Appeals, Filed By Assessee, Being Ita No. 4261 & 4262/Mum/2017 For Ay 2009-10 & 2010-11 Respectively , Are Directed Against Common Appellate Order Dated 29.03.2017 Passed By Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-1, Thane (Hereinafter Called “The Cit(A)”) In Appeal No. 222 & 223/15-16, For Assessment Year’S 2009-10 & 2010-11 Respectively, The Appellate Proceedings Had Arisen Before Learned Cit(A) From Separate Assessment Order(S) Both Dated 19.01.2015 Passed By Learned Assessing Officer (Hereinafter Called “The Ao”) U/S 144 R.W.S. 147 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Called “The Act”) For Ay 2009-10 & 2010-11 Respectively. Since Both These Appeals Raises Similar Issues & Common Grounds

For Appellant: Mr. Divendra H. JainFor Respondent: Shri. S.K Jain

Section 144Section 148Section 44A

Hawala Dealers involved in issuing bogus invoices to allow traders to claim tax credits and there are more than 37000 beneficiaries who claimed such bogus purchases and bogus tax credits. The Sales Tax Department recorded statements of these Hawala Dealers and these dealers have also filed an affidavits before Sales ... parties who were listed by the Sales Tax Department as hawala dealers .The information received by the AO stipulated that the assessee made following bogus purchases to the tune of Rs. 2,00,678/- which were stated to be from these alleged Hawala Dealers being bogus accommodation entry provider wherein

Shantilal B Parekh, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer- 3(4), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 4261/MUM/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Feb 2019AY 2009-10

For Appellant: Mr. Divendra H. JainFor Respondent: Shri. S.K Jain

Section 144Section 148Section 44A

Ramesh H. Bhansali, Mumbai vs. ITO -19(3)(1), Mumbai

In the result, both the appeals are dismissed

ITA 3115/MUM/2018[2011-12]Status: HeardITAT Mumbai01 Feb 2019AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri A.K. Garodia

For Appellant: NONEFor Respondent: Shri Vijay Kumar Soni, DR

Section 133(6)

assessee was estimated by the AO at 12.5%. Ld. CIT(A) confirmed the addition made to the extent of 12.5% of the alleged bogus purchases. Considering the facts of the present case, I find no reason to interfere with the order of the CIT(A) in any of these

Vedangi Ventures, Badlapur vs. Asst CIT Cir 2, Kalyan

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

ITA 564/MUM/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai01 Feb 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri G. Manjunathaassessment Year : 2012-13

For Appellant: NONEFor Respondent: Shri Satishchandra Rajore, DR

Section 133(6)Section 143(2)

from four parties listed as hawala parties in the list of Sales Tax department. The partywise details of alleged bogus purchases are as follows: • Abhedya Trading Pvt. Ltd., - Rs. 3,96,400/- • Avi Enterprises - Rs. 12,94,227/- • Kalpak Trading Pvt. Ltd., - Rs. 17,44,360/- • Amee Enterprises ... Delhi High Court in the case of CIT Vs. La Medica [250 ITR 575] (Del), upheld the additions made by the AO towards 100% bogus purchases for the following reasons: “5.0 Ground No. 1 is directed against the addition of Rs. 41,34,987 on account of bogus purchases

M/S. Technip Engineering Works Pvt.Ltd, Raigad vs. Income-Tax Officer, Ward - 3, Panvel

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 332/PUN/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Pune31 Jan 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.332/Pun/2018 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2010-11 M/S. Technip Engineering Works Pvt. Ltd., Plot No.W-153(E), Near Deepak Fertilizers, Midc, Taloja, Dist.-Raigad-410208. .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant Pan : Aabct7434M बनाम / V/S. Ito, Ward- 3, ……""यथ" / Respondent Panvel. Assessee By : Smt. Deepa Khare Revenue By : Shri M.K. Verma & Shri Rajesh Gawali सुनवाई क" तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 05.02.2019 घोषणा क" तारीख / Date Of Pronouncement : 07.02.2019 आदेश / Order Per D. Karunakara Rao, Am: This Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of Cit(A)-2, Pune Dated 31.08.2017 For The Assessment Year 2010-11. 2. The Grounds Raised By The Assessee Are As Under :- “1. On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case, The Ld. Cit(A) Erred In Confirming Disallowance Of Rs.7,00,015/- To The Extent 100% Of The Purchases Of Rs.1,74,736/- & Rs.5,25,279/- Made From Chanchal Tube Corp. & Suraj Tube Corp. Respectively. 2. On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case, The Ld. Cit(A) Erred In Treating The Said Purchases As Bogus Without Appreciating The Fact That-  All The Relevant Supporting Documentary Evidences Are In Place.  The Payment Were Made By Account Payee Cheques.

For Appellant: Smt. Deepa KhareFor Respondent: Shri M.K. Verma &

Section 143(3)Section 147

Based on the information received from the Sales Tax Department, Maharashtra, the Assessing Officer found that the assessee was a beneficiary of the bogus purchases bills from the entry providers. As per the said information, the assessee was a beneficiary of the bills issued by M/s. Technip Engg. Works ... Officer passed the reassessment order u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 147 of the Act and added the addition of Rs.7,00,015/- on account of bogus purchases to the total income of the assessee. Aggrieved with the said decision of the Assessing Officer, the assessee carried the matter before

M/S Shahnawaj Quereshi, Meerut vs. ACIT, Meerut

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 3454/DEL/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 Jan 2019AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri N. S. Saini & Shri Kuldip Singhassessment Year 2013-14 M/S. Shahnawaj Vs Asst. Cit, Circle-2, Quereshi, Meerut. M/S. Gmc International, H. No.123, Pocket A, Samar Garden, Fathoullapur Road, Meerut. (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By : Shri Rajiv Singhal, Adv. & Shri Ramit Kakkar, Adv. Respondent By : Shri S.S. Rana, Cit & Shri Yogesh Sharma, Sr.D.R. सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 08/01/2019 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement: 31/01/2019 Order Per N.S. Saini, A. M. This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Impugned Order Of Learned Cit(A), Meerut Dated 24.03.2017 For The Assessment Year 2013-14. The Sole Ground Of Appeal Taken By The Assessee In This Appeal Reads As Under. “1. The Ld. Cit(A) Has Erred In Sustaining Disallowance Of Alleged Bogus Purchase Of Rs.5,20,15,994/-. Observation Made, Inferences Drawn & Findings Recorded Are Against The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case.” 2. The Assessing Officer Observed In His Order That Assessee Has Made Purchase Of Raw Meat From 15 Parties As Under. 2 “1. Mohd. Chand Rs.18,90,000/- 2. Mohd. Ashraf Rs.18,90,000/- 3. Babu Ji Aaftab Rs. 19,04,000/- 4. Raju S/O Kalava Rs.18,90,000/- 5. Irfan Qureshi Rs. 26,25,000/- 6. Aijaj Ahmad Rs.18,90,000/- 7. Shahin Rs.18,90,000/- 8. Mohd. Mansoor Rs.18,90,000/- 9. Mohd. Nazim Rs.18,20,000/- 10. Mohd. Yasin Rs.14,27,744/- 11. Mohd. Sazid Rs.1,04,79,000/- 12. Mohd. Rais Rs.1,78,64,000/- 13. Mohd. Deedar Rs.18,48,000/- 14. Sufiyan Rs.14,85,000/- 15. Valil Urf Vakiluddin Rs.12,23,250/- Total Rs.5,20,15,994/-”

For Appellant: Shri Rajiv Singhal, Adv. &For Respondent: Shri S.S. Rana, CIT & Shri

Section 131

appeal taken by the assessee in this appeal reads as under. “1. The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in sustaining disallowance of alleged bogus purchase of Rs.5,20,15,994/-. Observation made, inferences drawn and findings recorded are against the facts and circumstances of the case.” 2. The Assessing Officer ... days in a year and for only single party M/s. GMC International, clearly proves that these parties are bogus and created for introducing bogus purchases in order to reduce the profit of assessee’s business. During the assessment proceedings, one party, Raju s/o Kalava attended before him in compliance

Advance Compseals Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer 9(1)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of assessee is dismissed

ITA 479/MUM/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Jan 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri A.K. Garodiaassessment Year : 2009-10

For Appellant: NONEFor Respondent: Shri Vijay Kumar Soni, DR

Section 133(6)Section 143(2)Section 147

evidences. The said material was subsequently sold by the Appellant and the profit earned thereon is offered for tax. Hence, addition of entire alleged bogus purchases is unjustified and the same may be deleted. 5. The Ld. CIT(A), further, failed to the appreciate that the Ld. A.O. has neither ... appeal is regarding addition made by the AO of Rs. 12,87,483/-, which was disallowed by the AO by treating the purchases as bogus purchases. This issue was decided by the Ld. CIT(A) at Para No. 6.2.1 of his order, which is reproduced herein below for the sake

Hydroair Tectonics (Pcd) Ltd, Navi Mumbai vs. DCIT Cen Cir 2(1), Mumbai

ITA 3949/MUM/2017[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Jan 2019AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh () & Shri G Manjunatha ()

Section 132Section 132(4)

promoter of Hydroair Tectonics (PCD) Ltd confessed in her statement recorded u/s 132(4) of the Act, that the group was indulging in procuring bogus purchase bills in order to siphon off money from the business to facilitate payment to various persons for getting contracts / orders and accordingly surrendered ... hands of M/s Hydroair Tectonics (PCD) Ltd. During the course of search, document containing information about bogus purchases and sales were found and seized. When the said document was confronted to the director, she admitted that the group was indulging in obtaining accommodation entries in form of purchases and also

Rajkumari Singh, Navi Mumbai vs. DCIT Cen Cir 8, Mumbai

ITA 946/MUM/2016[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Jan 2019AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh () & Shri G Manjunatha ()

Section 132Section 132(4)

Shri Ajay Gpta (HUF), Mumbai vs. ACIT Cent. Cir. 43, Mumbai

In the result, all the three appeals of assessee are allowed and that of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 2149/MUM/2016[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Jan 2019AY 2008-09

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Sri Rajesh Kumar, Am

For Appellant: Shri RC Jain, ARFor Respondent: Shri BB Rajendra Prasad, DR

Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153C

gone through the facts and circumstances of the case. We find from the assessment orders in these three years that the only issue of bogus purchase added by AO and restricted by CIT(A) at 12.5% and also commission of these bogus purchases added at 3% and restricted ... Revenue ITAs No. 2149, 2145, 2147/Mum/2016 & ITAs No. 1829 to 1830/Mum/2016 is in appeal against restriction of addition of bogus purchases and commission. And assessee is in appeal for deletion of entire addition and also raised this jurisdictional issue. 7. We have gone through the facts and noted that search

Shri Ajay Gupta (HUF), Mumbai vs. ACIT Cent. Cir. 43, Mumbai

In the result, all the three appeals of assessee are allowed and that of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 2145/MUM/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Jan 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Sri Rajesh Kumar, Am

For Appellant: Shri RC Jain, ARFor Respondent: Shri BB Rajendra Prasad, DR

Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153C

Abott Healthcare P. Ltd, Mumbai vs. ITO WD 3(2)(1), Mumbai

Accordingly, Ground No.2 raised by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 535/MUM/2012[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Jan 2019AY 2007-08

Bench: Shric.N.Prasad, Jm & Shrim.Balaganesh, Am

For Appellant: Shri Dhanesh Bafna / Ms.Chandini Shah / Shri Madhur AgrawalFor Respondent: Shri RakeshRanjan (DR)

Section 144C(5)Section 92C(2)

dismissed. 53. Ground No.2 raised by the Revenue is with regard to the action of the ld. DRP in deleting the addition of bogus purchases of Rs.21,78,563/-. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee was asked to produce the details of purchases made ... genuineness of the transactions. The assessee failed to produce them. Accordingly, the ld. AO treated the said purchases made from these two parties as bogus purchases. The ld. AO also made observation in his order without prejudice to the aforesaid contention that the assessee had produced bank statements stating that