ASIATIC INDUSTRIES,KOLKATA V. I.T.O., WARD - 26(4), KOLKATA

ITA 743/KOL/2025

AI Insights

The case involves Asiatic Industries appealing against the order of the CIT(A), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi, which confirmed the addition of Rs.8,79,300 as bogus purchases in the assessment year 2011-2012. The Assessing Officer had initially treated the purchases from three suppliers as bogus based on a survey and subsequent non-response to notices under section 133(6) of the Income Tax Act. The Tribunal noted the lack of evidence from the assessee to counter the findings of the Assessing Officer and CIT(A), but allowed the appeal partly to give the assessee another opportunity to substantiate the legitimacy of the purchases.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 711629 (ITAT-KOLKATA)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 21-07-2025
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Assessment Year: 2011-2012
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: SANJIB KUMAR PAUL
• Assessee Lawyers: RAJESH KUMAR MISHRA
• Keywords: Bogus purchase; Bogus

Judgement Text

" आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण, “एस.एम.सी” न्यायपीठ, कोलकाता IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “SMC” BENCH KOLKATA श्री जाजज माथन, न्याययक सदस्य क े समक्ष । BEFORE SHRI GEORGE MATHAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER आयकर अपील सं/ITA No.743/KOL/2025 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year :2011-2012) Asiatic Industries 4, Santosh Roy Road, Barisha, Kolkata-700008 Vs ITO, Ward-26(4), Kolkata PAN No. :AAEFA 4839 R (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) नििााररती की ओर से /Assessee by : Shri Rajesh Kumar Mishra, AR राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue by : Shri Sanjib Kumar Paul, Sr.DR सुनवाई की तारीख / Date of Hearing : 21/07/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Date of Pronouncement : 21/07/2025 आदेश / O R D E R This is an appeal filed by the assessee against the order of the ld. CIT(A), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi, dated 12.02.2025 for the Assessment Year 2011-2012. 2. Shri Rajesh Kumar Mishra, ld. AR appeared on behalf of the assessee and Shri Sanjib Kumar Paul, ld. Sr.DR appeared on behalf of the revenue. 3. It was submitted by the ld. AR that there was a survey in the premises of the assessee and in the assessment which was done in the case of the assessee. The Assessing Officer has treated the purchases from Durga Trading Corporation, Tarama Ferrous & Nonferrous Trading Co. Pvt. Ltd. and Kaustri Metal Trading (P) Ltd. total to an extent of Rs.8,79,300/- as bogus purchases. It was the submission that the ld. CIT(A) has also confirmed the addition as made by the Assessing Officer. It was the submission that in the worst case scenario only the profit elements of the Printed from counselvise.com ITA No.743/KOL/2025 2 said bogus purchases is liable to be assessed. It was the submission that the Assessing Officer had issued notice u/s.133(6) of the Act. The Assessing Officer could have issued notice u/s.131(1) of the Act but he did not do so. It was the prayer that the addition made by the ld. Assessing Officer and confirmed by the ld.CIT(A) is liable to be deleted. 4. Ld Sr.DR vehemently supported the orders of the Assessing Officer and ld. CIT(A). 5. I have considered the rival submissions. A perusal of the assessment order at page 2 shows that the Assessing Officer has issued notice u/s.133(6) of the Act to the three suppliers from whom the assessee has made the alleged bogus purchases. The notices were returned with the remarks “Not Known”. The assessee was asked by the Assessing Officer to provide the current addresses of those suppliers. That was also not provided by the assessee. A perusal of the order of the ld. CIT(A) shows that the assessee has practically not produced any evidence before the ld.CIT(A) to revert the findings of the ld. Assessing Officer. However, the assessee has taken a stand that the gross profit in regard to the bogus purchases could be added. In normal circumstances there should obviously mean that bogus purchases as identified by the Assessing Officer is not explained. However, considering the facts that the assessee has been claiming that there were other methods for the Assessing Officer to examine the suppliers from whom the purchases have been made, in the interest of justice, the issues in this appeal are restored to the file of the ld.AO for readjduication after granting the assessee adequate opportunity Printed from counselvise.com ITA No.743/KOL/2025 3 of being heard. The assessee shall produce the sellers/suppliers before the Assessing Officer the sellers/suppliers have not responded to the notice u/s.133(6) of the Act. If the assessee is unable to produce the sellers/suppliers before the Assessing Officer, liberty is granted to the Assessing Officer to draw adverse inference. Here, I am directing the assessee to produce the said sellers/suppliers before the Assessing Officer because the alleged ledger account produced by the assessee in respect of three suppliers show that it is a running account and the business of the assessee is still operational. 6. In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes. Order dictated and pronounced in the open court on 21/07/2025. Sd/- (जाजज माथन) (GEORGE MATHAN) न्यानयक सदस्य / JUDICIAL MEMBER कोलकाता Kolkata; ददनाांक Dated 21/07/2025 Prakash Kumar Mishra, Sr.P.S. आदेश की प्रनतललपप अग्रेपर्त/Copy of the Order forwarded to : आदेशािुसार/ BY ORDER, (Assistant Registrar) Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Kolkata 1. अपीलाथी / The Appellant- 2. प्रत्यथी / The Respondent- 3. आयकर आयुक्त(अपील) / The CIT(A), 4. आयकर आयुक्त / CIT 5. विभागीय प्रविविवि, आयकर अपीलीय अविकरण, कोलकाता / DR, ITAT, Kolkata 6. गार्ज फाईल / Guard file. सत्यापपत प्रयत //True Copy// Printed from counselvise.com "