Appeal Details
Counselvise Citation
[2017] 123 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 3001 (ITAT-PUNE)
Assessee PAN
Bench
Appeal Number
CRN Number
Duration Of Justice
6 month(s) 15 day(s)
Appellant
Respondent
Appeal Type
Cross Objection
Pronouncement Date
28-04-2017
Appeal Filed By
Assessee
Order Result
Allowed
Bench Allotted
SMC
Next Hearing Date
20-04-2017
Assessment Year
2010-2011
Appeal Filed On
13-10-2016
Judgement Text
- IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE BENCH SMC , PUNE , BEFORE MS. SUSHMA CHOWLA, JM . / ITA NO. 795 /P U N/201 4 / ASSESS MENT YEAR : 20 10 - 11 M/S. CHHABI ELECTRICALS PVT. LTD., MIDC, ANANTHA ROAD, JALGAON 425 003 . / APPELLANT PAN: AA BCC3660J VS. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CIRCLE - 1, JALGAON . / RESPONDENT / APPELLANT BY : SHRI C.H. NANIWADEKAR / RESPONDENT BY : SHRI SUHAS KULKARNI . / ITA NO S . 1288 & 12 8 9 /PUN/201 5 / ASSESSMENT YEAR S : 2009 - 10 & 2010 - 11 THE ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, ICHALKARANJI CI RCLE, ICHALKARANJI, DIST. KOLHAPUR 416 115 . / APPELLANT VS. M/S. ANANT CHEMICALS, ANANT, 18/484, NEW INDUSTRIAL ESTATE, ICHALKARANJI, DIST. KOLHAPUR 416 115 . / RESPONDENT PAN : AAEFA7703J / APPELL ANT BY : SHRI M.S. KULKARNI / RESPONDENT BY : SHRI SUHAS KULKARNI SMC GROUP CASES 2 . / ITA NO. 829 /PUN/201 6 / ASSESSMENT YEAR : 20 11 - 12 APEX ECOTECH PVT. LTD., PLOT NO.S - 72/1, S - BLOCK, PIMPRI INDUSTRIAL AREA, BHOSARI, P UNE 411 026 PAN : AAHCA6649M . / APPELLANT VS. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE - 2(1), PUNE . / RESPONDENT / APPELLANT BY : NONE / RESPONDENT BY : SHRI SUHAS KULKARNI . / ITA NO. 944 /PUN/201 6 / ASSESSMENT YEAR : 20 11 - 12 SHRI UTTAMKUMAR CHHAGANLAL JAIN, H.NO.935, NEW MULCHAND COMPOUND, BHIWANDI, BEHIND SHIKAR SIZING, KATAI, SHELAR PAROL ROAD, THANE 421 302 PAN : A COPJ8713D/INDL. . / APPELLANT VS. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER , WARD - 1(4), KALYAN . / RESPONDENT / APPELLANT BY : NONE / RESPONDENT BY : SHRI SUHAS KULKARNI . / ITA NO. 1542 /PUN/201 6 / ASSESSMENT YEAR : 20 10 - 11 M/S. MODERN ENTERPRISES, C/O. SHAH KHANDELWAL JAIN & ASSOCIATES, CHARTERED ACCOUNTANTS, LEVEL 3, BUSINESS BAY, PLOT NO.84, WELLESLEY ROAD, NEAR RTO, PUNE 411 001 PAN : AAFFM1432P . / APPELLANT VS. THE DEPU TY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE - 2(3), PUNE . / RESPONDENT SMC GROUP CASES 3 / APPELLANT BY : SHRI NILESH KHANDELWAL / RESPONDENT BY : SHRI SUHAS KULKARNI . / ITA NO S . 1554 & 1555 /PUN/201 6 / ASSESSMENT YEAR S : 2009 - 10 & 2011 - 12 GOLDEN CREST MARKETING NETWORK PVT. LTD., 6, ANUSAYA VILLA, RAKHI ENCLAVE, PARAB NAGAR, INDIRA NAGAR, NEAR BOMBAY AGRA ROAD, NASHIK 422 009 PAN : AAACG8248R . / APPELLANT VS. THE INCOM E TAX OFFICER, WARD - 1(2), NASHIK . / RESPONDENT / APPELLANT BY : NONE / RESPONDENT BY : SHRI SUHAS KULKARNI . / ITA NO S . 1670 & 1671 /PUN/201 6 / ASSESSMENT YEAR S : 2010 - 11 & 2011 - 12 MAA SARASWATI STEEL INDUSTRIES, PLOT NO.D - 15, MIDC MALEGAON, SINNER, NASHIK 423 103 PAN : AAQFM6540H . / APPELLANT VS. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD - 1(4), NASHIK . / RESPONDENT / APPELLA NT BY : SMT. DEEPA KHARE / RESPONDENT BY : SHRI SUHAS KULKARNI . / ITA NO. 1 716 /PUN/201 6 / ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2011 - 12 CRONIMATE INDIA METALS PVT. LTD., C202, ASHISH APARTMENT, SUDHIR PAWAR PATH, MODIBAUG, SH IVAJINAGAR, PUNE 411 016 PAN : AA CCC6602R . / APPELLANT VS. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD - 1 1 ( 1 ), PUNE . / RESPONDENT SMC GROUP CASES 4 / APPELLANT BY : SHRI KISHOR PHADKE / RESPONDENT BY : SHRI SU HAS KULKARNI . / ITA NO. 1921 /PUN/201 6 / ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2009 - 10 MAHENDRA SHANTILAL CHATURMUTHA, HUF M.S. EQUIPMENTS, JATAN, OPP. ROTARY EQUIPMENTS, NEAR JAIN MANDIR, GANJMAL, NASHIK 422 001 PAN : AABHC3396J . / APPELLANT VS. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD - 1(2), NASHIK . / RESPONDENT / APPELLANT BY : SHRI SANKET JOSHI / RESPONDENT BY : SHRI SUHAS KULKARNI . / ITA NO. 1931, 1932 & 1983/ PUN/2 01 6 / ASSESSMENT YEAR S : 2009 - 10, 2010 - 11 & 2009 - 10 THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD - 1(5), NASHIK . / APPELLANT VS. SMT. SUJATA SHREYAS YANDE, PROP. M/S. PREYAS SALES CORPORATION, PROSPER PARK, SHINGADA TALAV, NASHIK 422 002 PAN : AAMPY7387E . / RESPONDENT . / ITA NO. 1983/ PUN/201 6 / ASSESSMENT YEAR S : 2009 - 10 SMT. SUJATA SHREYAS YANDE, PROP. M/S. PREYAS SALES CORPORATION, PROSPER PARK, SHINGADA TALAV, NASHIK 422 002 PAN : AAMPY73 87E . / APPELLANT VS. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD - 1(5), NASHIK . / RESPONDENT ASSESSEE BY : SHRI SANKET JOSHI REVENUE BY : SHRI SUHAS KULKARNI SMC GROUP CASES 5 . / ITA NO. 2229 /PUN/201 6 / ASSESSMENT YEAR : 200 9 - 10 SHRI SHYAM CHANDUMAL GURUBAXNI, 942, BEHIND JANTA BANK, GURU NANAK MARKET, NANDURBAR 425412 PAN : ADGPG7391B . / APPELLANT VS. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD - 4, DHULE . / RESPONDENT / APPELLA NT BY : NONE / RESPONDENT BY : SHRI SUHAS KULKARNI . / ITA NO. 2284 /PUN/201 6 / ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2009 - 10 THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD - 2, PANVEL, INCOME TAX OFFICE, 2 ND FLOOR, TRIFED TOWER, SECTOR - 17, OPP. K HANDA COLONY, NEW PANVEL 410 206, DIST. RAIGAD . / APPELLANT VS. SHRI RAJESH JAYANTILAL SHAH, PROP. SAMEER ENTERPRISES, 8,NEETA APARTMENTS, DR. RAJENDRA PRASAD ROAD, MULUND (W), MUMBAI 400 080 PAN : AKXPS6646K . / RES PONDENT / APPELLANT BY : SHRI M.A. GOHEL / RESPONDENT BY : SHRI SUHAS KULKARNI . / ITA NO. 865 /PUN/201 6 / ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2010 - 11 THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 2(1), NASHIK . / APPELLANT VS. SHRI KAILASH RADHESHYAM SHARMA, 32, STERLING TOWER, DWARKA CIRCLE, NASHIK 422011 . / RESPONDENT PAN: ARZPS4019H SMC GROUP CASES 6 . / CO NO.33/PUN/2016 / ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2010 - 11 (OUT OF ITA NO. 865 /P U N /201 6 ) SHRI KAILASH RADHESHYAM SHARMA, 32, STERLING TOWER, DWARKA CIRCLE, NASHIK 422011 / CROSS OBJECT OR PAN: ARZPS4019H VS. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 2(1), NASHIK . / RESPONDENT ASSESSEE BY : SHRI PRAMOD SHIN GTE REVENUE BY : SHRI HITENDRA NINAWE . / ITA NO. 22 66 /PUN/201 6 / ASSESSMENT YEAR : 20 11 - 12 FLOW CONTROL PUMPS & SYSTEMS PVT. LTD., J - 20, MIDC, AMBAD, NASHIK - 422010 . / APPELLANT PAN: AABCF1040K VS. THE INCOM E TAX OFFICER, WARD 1(2), NASHIK . / RESPONDENT / APPELLANT BY : SHRI M.K. KULKARNI / RESPONDENT BY : SHRI HITENDRA NINAWE / DATE OF HEARING : 1 8 .04.2017 / 20.04.2017 / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT: 28 . 04.2017 / ORDER PER SUSHMA CHOWLA, J M : TH E BUNCH OF APPEALS FILED BY THE RESPECTIVE ASSESSEES ARE AGAINST SEPARATE ORDER S OF CIT(A) RELATING TO DIFFERENT ASSESSMENT YEAR S AGAINST ORDER S PASSED UNDER SEC TION 143(3) / 143(3) R.W.S. 147 OF THE INCOME - TAX ACT , 1961 (IN SHORT THE ACT) . SMC GROUP CASES 7 2. ALL THE APPEALS RELATING TO THE DIFFERENT ASSESSEES WERE HEARD TOGETHER AND ARE BEING DISPOSED OF BY THIS CONSOLIDATED ORDER FOR THE SAKE OF CONVENIENCE. HOWEVER, REFERE NCE IS BEING MADE TO THE FACTS AND ISSUE IN THE CASE OF M/S. CHHABI ELECTRICALS PVT. LTD. IN ITA NO.795/PUN/2014 TO ADJUDICATE THE ISSUE FIRST . 3. THE ASSESSEE IN ITA NO.795/PUN/2014 HAS RAISED THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS OF APPEAL: - 1. THE LD. COMMISSIONER O F INCOME TAX (APPEALS) - 2, NASHIK [HEREINAFTER REFERRED TO AS 'LD. CIT(A)'] ERRED IN PASSING THE ORDER DATED 17.02.2014 CONFIRMING THE ACTION OF THE LD. A.O. IN MAKING THE ADDITION OF RS.3,23,691/ - TREATING THE SAME AS BOGUS PURCHASES WITHOUT APPRECIATING THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE. 2. THE LD. CIT(A) FAILED TO APPRECIATE THAT THE PURCHASES WAS DULY ACCOUNTED IN THE BOOKS OF THE APPELLANT. HENCE, TREATING THE PURCHASES AS BOGUS AND THEREBY' MAKING ADDITION OF RS.3,23,691/ - UNDER SECTION 69C O F THE ACT IS UNJUSTIFIED AND THE SAME MAY BE DELETED. 3. THE LD. CIT(A) FURTHER ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE ACTION OF THE LD. A: O. IN MAKING THE ADDITION OF RS.3,23,691/ - INVOKING THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 69C OF THE ACT WITHOUT APPRECIATING THAT THE APPEL LANT HAS PROVED THE PURCHASES MADE DURING THE IMPUGNED ASSESSMENT YEAR WITH SUPPORTING EVIDENCE. HENCE, THE ADDITION OF RS.3,23,691/ - UNDER SECTION 69C OF THE ACT IS UNJUSTIFIED AND THE SAME MAY BE DELETED. 4. WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO THE ABOVE THE LD. A. O . ERRED IN MAKING ADDITION OF RS.3,23,691 / - UNDER SECTION 69C OF THE ACT MERELY ON THE BASIS OF CERTAIN INVESTIGATION CARRIED OUT BY THE SALES TAX DEPARTMENT WITHOUT PROVIDING THE APPELLANT AN OPPORTUNITY TO CROSS EXAMINE THE DEPARTMENT'S WITNESSES. THUS, THE ADDITION OF RS.3,23,691/ - IS NOT AT ALL JUSTIFIED AND THE SAME MAY BE DELETED. 5. THE APPELLANT DENIES ANY LIABILITY TO PAY INTEREST UNDER SECTION 2348 AND 234C OF THE ACT. THEREFORE, THE SAME ARE NOT LEVIABLE. 6. THE APPELLANT CRAVES LEAVE TO A DD, AMEND OR ALTER ANY OF THE GROUNDS MENTIONED ABOVE. 4 . BRIEFLY IN THE FACTS OF THE CASE, THE ASSESSEE HAD FILED THE RETURN OF INCOME DECLARING TOTAL INCOME AT RS.33,93,110/ - . DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAD RE CEIVED INFORMATION THAT THE TRANSACTION ENTERED INTO BY THE ASSESSEE WITH SIDDHI VINAYAK TRADERS WAS HAWALA TRANSACTION FOR THE ALLEGED PURCHASES MADE FROM THE SAID PARTY. THE SMC GROUP CASES 8 ASSESSING OFFICER SHOW CAUSED THE ASSESSEE AS TO WHY THE PURCHASES OF RS.3,23,6 91/ - SHOULD NOT BE DISALLOWED. IN REPLY, THE ASSESSEE POINTED OUT THAT THE PURCHASES FROM THE SAID DEALER WERE NOT BOGUS AND COPY OF INVOICE CUM DELIVERY CHALLAN FROM THE SUPPLIER WAS AVAILABLE. THE ASSESSING OFFICER WAS OF THE VIEW THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD NOT BEEN ABLE TO FULLY CLARIFY ON THE ISSUE OF HAWALA TRANSACTION OF FAKE PURCHASES. THE ASSESSING OFFICER FURTHER OBSERVED THAT THE SALES TAX DEPARTMENT HAD ALSO REFUSED THE SAID CLAIM OF SET OFF OF VAT, AFTER WHICH THE VAT WAS PAID BY THE ASSESSEE. TH E ASSESSEE HAD ACCEPTED THE LIABILITY AND PAID THE REQUIRED VAT INVOLVED, WHICH AS PER THE ASSESSING OFFICER, CLEARLY SHOWS THAT THE TRANSACTION WAS FAKE TRANSACTION OF PURCHASES THROUGH HAWALA DEALER. THE TRANSACTION WAS HELD TO BE A SHAM TRANSACTION AND ADDITION OF RS.3,23,691/ - WAS MADE TO THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE. 5. BEFORE THE CIT(A), THE ASSESSEE POINTED OUT THAT IT WA S ENGAGED IN THE MANUFACTURING AND TRADING IN BATTERY CHARGER S & BATTERY, ACCESSORIES, L.T. TRANSFORMERS, VOLTAGE REGULATORS & L.T. SWITCH GEARS, DC DB ETC. THE ASSESSEE FURTHER POINTED OUT THAT IT HAD RECEIVED PHYSICAL DELIVERY OF GOODS FROM THE SAID SUPPLIER AND THE PAYMENT WAS MADE BY WAY OF ACCOUNT PAYEE CHEQUE ONLY. THE VAT WAS COLLECTED BY THE SAID SUPPLIER FROM THE ASSESSEE I N ITS INVOICE BUT THE SAME WAS NOT PAID BY THE SUPPLIER AND THE ASSESSEE AGREED TO PAY THE VAT . H OWEVER, THAT DOES NOT MAKE THE PURCHASES TO BE FAKE. THE ASSESSEE MADE ANOTHER SUBMISSION ALSO AND THE SAID SUBMISSIONS WERE FORWARDED TO THE ASSESSING OFFICE R TO HIS COMMENTS. THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN THE REMAND REPORT DATED 16.12.2013 NOTES THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD SUBMITTED THE INFORMATION WITH REGARD TO THE GOODS RECEIVED AND MATERIAL ISSUED AND THE ACCOUNTS STATEMENT OF THE CONCERNED PARTY. THE ASSESSING OF FICER ALSO REPORTS THAT THE STATEMENT OF THE MANAGER (ACCOUNTS) WAS RECORDED. FURTHER, A LETTER SMC GROUP CASES 9 WAS ADDRESSED TO THE JOINT COMMISSIONER OF SALES TAX VIDE LETTER DATED 15.10.2013 SEEKING THE INFORMATION SUCH AS COPY OF AFFIDAVIT OF HAWALA DEALER, BANK STAT EMENT AND COPIES OF STATEMENTS RECORDED OF SUCH HAWALA DEALERS. THE SAID INFORMATION WAS NOT RECEIVED AND FOLLOW UP LETTER WAS ISSUED AND EVEN THE OFFICE INSPECTOR WAS DEPUTED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. HOWEVER, NO INFORMATION WAS RECEIVED FROM THE SALES TAX OFFICE OF DHULE . THE ASSESSING OFFICER DURING THE COURSE OF REMAND PROCEEDINGS ASKED THE ASSESSEE TO PRODUCE THE REPRESENTATIVE OF M/S. SIDDHI VINAYAK TRADERS. HOWEVER, THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED A LETTER STATING THAT THE SAID PARTY WAS NOT TRACEABLE NOW , HENCE, COULD NOT BE PRODUCED. THE ASSESSING OFFICER VIDE PARA 5 OF THE REMAND REPORT STATED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD ONLY SUBSTANTIATED ITS BOOKS OF ACCOUNT, HOWEVER, THE RELATED PARTY WAS NOT PRODUCED BY THE ASSESSEE. THE ASSESSING OFFICER ACKNOWLEDGED T HAT NO DOUBT, THE DEPARTMENT HAS TO PROVE THE TRANSACTIONS ARE BOGUS OR NOT GENUINE, AT THE SAME TIME, THE ASSESSEE HAS ALSO TO PRODUCE THE PERSON INVOLVED. WHERE THE ASSESSEE HAD FAILED TO PRODUCE THE ASSOCIATED PARTY FOR CROSS - EXAMINATION AND NO CONFIRM ATION WAS ALSO FURNISHED FROM THE SAID PARTY, THEN THE ASSESSING OFFICER WAS OF THE VIEW THAT THE SAID PURCHASES ARE TO BE DISALLOWED IN THE HANDS OF ASSESSEE. 6. THE CIT(A) ON THE ANALYSIS OF THE CLAIM OF ASSESSEE AND THE REMAND REPORT SUBMITTED BY THE A SSESSING OFFICER NOTES THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS NOT ABLE TO PRODUCE THE PARTY SIDDHI VINAYAK TRADERS OR ITS REPRESENTATIVES. THE CIT(A) WAS OF THE VIEW THAT THE EXAMINATION OF THE SAID PARTY, ITS BOOKS OF ACCOUNT, BANK STATEMENTS, BILLS / VOUCHERS, ETC. WERE ABSOLUTELY CRUCIAL AND IMPORTANT TO KNOW THE TRUTH. IT WAS FURTHER ALLEGED BY THE CIT(A) THAT THE ASSESSEE COULD PAY TO THE SAID PARTY BY CHEQUE AND GET THE MONEY BACK BY CASH. THE CIT(A) FURTHER OBSERVED THAT THE ASSESSEE COULD RECEIVE THE GOODS BUT NO T NECESSARILY FROM THE SAID PARTY AND COULD HAVE PROCURED THE GOODS FROM MARKET BY PAYING SMC GROUP CASES 10 IN CASH. SINCE SUCH THINGS COULD BE ARRANGED, THE CIT(A) WAS OF THE VIEW THAT IT WAS NECESSARY TO EXAMINE THE SAID DEALER AND SINCE THE ASSESSEE HAD PREVENTED THE AS SESSING OFFICER TO VERIFY THE FACTS BY NOT PRODUCING THE SAID PARTY, WHERE THE ASSESSEE WAS DEALING WITH REGULAR AND GENUINE PARTIES, THEN THE ASSESSEE WAS HELD TO HAVE FAILED TO DISCHARGE ITS RESPONSIBILITY AND FAILED TO SUBSTANTIATE ITS CLAIM OF GENUINE PURCHASE OF GOODS. THE CIT(A) FURTHER HELD THAT WHERE THE ASSESSEE KNEW THE TRANSACTION TO BE NOT GENUINE, IT PAID THE SALES TAX WHEN THE SCANDAL OF SALES TAX (FRAUD) CAME INTO OPEN. THE CIT(A) UPHELD THE ORDER OF ASSESSING OFFICER HOLDING THE ABOVE PURC HASE TRANSACTIONS TO BE BOGUS. 7. THE ASSESSEE IS IN APPEAL AGAINST THE ORDER OF CIT(A). 8. SHRI C.H. NANIWADEKAR, THE LEARNED AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE FOR THE ASSESSEE APPEARING FOR M/S. CHHABI ELECTRICALS P. LTD., POINTED OUT THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS A PRIVATE LIMITED COMPANY, WHICH WAS ENGAGED IN THE MANUFACTURE OF BATTERY CHARGERS. THE TOTAL TURNOVER OF THE ASSESSEE COMPANY WAS ABOUT RS.18 - 19 CRORES AND THE ASSESSEE HAD DECLARED GROSS PROFIT OF RS. 70 LAKHS FOR THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION. THE LEARNE D AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE FOR THE ASSESSEE POINTED OUT THAT THE FACTORY OF ASSESSEE WAS AT JALGAON AND IT HAD PURCHASED SWITCHES FROM M/S. SIDDHI VINAYAK TRADERS, WHICH WAS BASED IN THANE. ALL THE ITEMS WERE OF RAW MATERIAL. HE FURTHER REFERRED TO THE DOCUMENTATION RELATING TO THE TRANSIT OF RAW MATERIAL, WHEREIN A GATE ENTRY WAS MADE AT THE FACTORY GATE AND THEREAFTER, GOODS RECEIPT NOTE I.E. GRN WAS ISSUED AT FACTORY, WHICH HAS CROSS REFERENCE OF THE GATE ENTRY. THIRDLY, ISSUE NOTE IS ISSUED WHEN RAW MATERIAL IS RELEASED FOR PRODUCTION. THE LEARNED AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE FOR THE ASSESSEE POINTED OUT THAT ALL THE DETAILS WERE MAINTAINED AND AGAINST THE PURCHASES, THE PAYMENT WAS MADE SMC GROUP CASES 11 THROUGH CHEQUE. HE FURTHER STATED THAT THE SALES TAX DEPARTMENT THROUGH INVESTIGATION HAD FOUND THAT VAT WAS NOT PAID BY THE SAID PARTY, WHOSE NAME APPEARED IN THE LIST OF HAWALA TRADERS. THE ASSESSEE WHEN CONFRONTED, PAID THE VAT. 9. THE LEARNED AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE FOR THE ASSESSEE REFERRING TO THE ORDER OF ASSESSING OFFICER, POINTED OUT THAT DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, THE ASSESSING OFFICER DID NOT HAVE THE COPY OF STATEMENT RECORDED OF THE HAWALA DEALER. ON 13.10.2013, FOR THE FIRST TIME, THE ASSESSING OFFICER REQUISITIONED AND GETS THE CO PY OF THE STATEMENT. HE FURTHER STATED THAT NO VERIFICATION OF THE SAID HAWALA DEALER WAS MADE DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS. IT WAS ALSO DURING THE COURSE OF REMAND PROCEEDINGS, THE ASSESSING OFFICER ASKED THE ASSESSEE TO PRODUCE THE PERSO N. THE LEARNED AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE FOR THE ASSESSEE STRESSED THAT THE SAID PARTY WAS NOT AN ASSOCIATED PARTY AND THERE IS NO MERIT IN THE OBSERVATIONS OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN THIS REGARD. HE FURTHER POINTED OUT THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAD MA DE THE ADDITION UNDER SECTION 68 OF THE ACT, WHICH WAS MODIFIED TO ADDITION UNDER SECTION 69C OF THE ACT BY THE CIT(A). THE LEARNED AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE FOR THE ASSESSEE REFERRED TO THE COPY OF ACCOUNTS PLACED AT PAGE 26 OF THE PAPER BOOK AND THE COP IES OF INVOICES PLACED AT PAGES 29, 30, 40 AND 66 OF THE PAPER BOOK AND ALSO REFERRED TO THE COPY OF BANK STATEMENT POINTING OUT THAT THE PAYMENT WAS MADE BY CHEQUE, WHICH IS PLACED AT PAGE 61 OF THE PAPER BOOK. 10. THE LEARNED AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE FOR THE ASSESSEE THEREAFTER, REFERRED TO THE DECISION OF THE PUNE BENCH OF TRIBUNAL IN SHRI MUKESHKUMAR PUKHRAJ MEHTA VS. ITO IN ITA NO.2026/PN/2014, RELATING TO ASSESSMENT YEAR 2010 - 11, ORDER DATED 03.11.2015, WHICH WAS CASE OF TRADER, WHEREIN THE SMC GROUP CASES 12 ASSESS EE HAD ADMITTED TO THE AFORESAID HAWALA PURCHASES AND IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY STOCK DETAILS, TOTAL PURCHASES WERE ADDED IN THE HANDS OF SAID ASSESSEE. FURTHER, REFERENCE WAS MADE TO THE PUNE BENCH OF TRIBUNAL IN ITO VS. SHRI PURUSHOTTAM SHANKAR KULKARNI IN ITA NO.991/PN/2012, RELATING TO ASSESSMENT YEAR 2009 - 10, ORDER DATED 07.04.2016, WHEREIN ALSO IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY STOCK DETAILS, FOLLOWING THE RATIO IN EARLIER DECISION, THE TRIBUNAL UPHELD THE ENTIRE ADDITION OF BOGUS PURCHASES IN THE HANDS OF ASSESSEE. HOWEVER, THE PUNE BENCH OF TRIBUNAL IN M/S. CHETAN ENTERPRISES VS. ACIT IN ITA NOS.365 & 366/PN/2016, RELATING TO ASSESSMENT YEARS 2010 - 11 & 2011 - 12 AND IN M/S. PATCO PRECISION COMPONENTS PVT. LTD. VS. ACIT IN ITA NO.695/PN/2009 - 10, RELATING TO ASSESSMEN T YEAR 2009 - 10, ORDER DATED 31.08.2016 HAD MADE ADDITION ON ACCOUNT OF ESTIMATION OF GP @ 10% OVER AND ABOVE THE GP DECLARED BY THE SAID ASSESSEE , WHERE THE ASSESSEE HAD ESTABLISHED THE DELIVERY OF GOODS AND ITS SALES OR CONSUMPTION . HOWEVER, THE TRIBUNAL HELD THAT NO ADDITION IS WARRANTED IF THE COPY OF THE STATEMENT IS NOT GIVEN TO THE ASSESSEE. 1 1 . THE LEARNED DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE FOR THE REVENUE ON THE OTHER HAND, PLACED RELIANCE ON THE RATIO LAID DOWN BY THE HONBLE HIGH COURT OF RAJASTHAN IN INDIAN WOOLLEN CARPET FACTORY VS. ITAT & ORS. (2003) 260 ITR 658 (RAJ). 1 2 . SHRI M.K. KULKARNI, THE LEARNED AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE FOR THE ASSESSEE IN THE CASE OF M/S. ANANT CHEMICALS HAS RELIED ON THE DECISION OF THE PUNE BENCH OF TRIBUNAL IN M/S. CH ETAN ENTERPRISES VS. ACIT (SUPRA). 1 3 . THE LEARNED DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE FOR THE REVENUE ON THE OTHER HAND, POINTED OUT THAT THE FACTS OF THE CASE WERE DIFFERENT WHERE THE COPY OF THE SMC GROUP CASES 13 STATEMENT WAS SUPPLIED TO THE ASSESSEE AND THE PERSON FROM WHOM P URCHASES WERE MADE WAS SUMMONED BUT BECAUSE OF NON - COMPLIANCE, IT WAS FIT CASE FOR HIGHER GP TO BE APPLIED. THE APPEAL IS FILED BY THE REVENUE AGAINST THE ORDER OF CIT(A), WHO HAS APPLIED GP RATE TO ESTIMATE THE INCOME IN THE HANDS OF ASSESSEE ON ACCOUNT OF BOGUS PURCHASES. THE ASSESSEE IS NOT IN APPEAL AGAINST THE ORDER OF CIT(A). 1 4 . IN THE CASE OF APEX ECOTECH PVT. LTD., NONE APPEARED ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE, BUT THE CIT(A) IN PARA 8 HAD APPLIED THE RATIO LAID DOWN BY THE PUNE BENCH OF TRIBUNAL IN S HRI MUKESHKUMAR PUKHRAJ MEHTA VS. ITO (SUPRA) AND UPHELD THE ADDITION OF BOGUS PURCHASES IN THE HANDS OF ASSESSEE AS THE ASSESSEE HAD FAILED TO PRODUCE ANY DETAILS. 1 5 . IN THE CASE OF SHRI UTTAMKUMAR CHHAGANLAL JAIN ALSO, NONE APPEARED ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE AND THE CIT(A) VIDE PARAS 13 AND 14 ACKNOWLEDGED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD FAILED TO FURNISH QUANTITATIVE - WISE DETAILS OF GOODS DEALT IN AND HAD ALSO FAILED TO PRODUCE BILLS IN RESPECT OF PURCHASES. THE ASSESSING OFFICER DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSME NT PROCEEDINGS ASKED THE ADDRESS OF THE PERSON FROM WHOM THE PURCHASES WERE MADE BUT THE ASSESSEE DID NOT EVEN FURNISH THE SAID ADDRESS. 1 6 . THE LEARNED DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE FOR THE REVENUE STRESSED THAT THE ADDITION IN THE HANDS OF ASSESSEE ON A CCOUNT OF BOGUS PURCHASES MERITS TO BE UPHELD. 1 7 . SHRI NILESH KHANDELWAL, THE LEARNED AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE FOR THE ASSESSEE IN THE CASE OF M/S. MODERN ENTERPRISES REFERRING TO THE FACTS OF THE SAID CASE, POINTED OUT THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS MANUFACTURI NG PIPES FROM SCRAP SMC GROUP CASES 14 AND WAS ALSO CARRYING OUT VARIOUS WORKS ON CONTRACT BASIS. THE SCRAP PURCHASED BY THE ASSESSEE FROM DIFFERENT PARTIES WAS SENT TO THE FOUNDRY . F URTHER, ON THE WORK CONTRACTS, TDS WAS DEDUCTED. THE LEARNED AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE FO R THE ASSESSEE POINTED OUT THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS MAINTAINING COMPLET E BOOKS OF ACCOUNT AND WAS ALSO REGISTERED UNDER THE EXCISE ACT. THE ASSESSEE REFERRED TO THE ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE FURNISHED AT PAGES 5 ONWARDS, WHEREIN THE COPY OF BILLS AND THE DELIVERY CHALLANS ARE ATTACHED. THE LEARNED AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE FOR THE ASSESSEE POINTED OUT THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD COMPLETE INFORMATION IN RESPECT OF TRA I L OF SO CALLED PURCHASES MADE FROM THE HAWALA DEALERS AND ITS DELIVERY AND FURTHER ITS UTILIZATION. THE LEARNED AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE FOR THE ASSESSEE ALSO ADMITTED THAT ALL THESE DETAILS COULD NOT BE FURNISHED BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER. HOWEVER, HE POINTED OUT THAT THE MATTER MAY BE SENT BACK TO THE FILE OF ASSESSING OFFICER FOR VERIFICATION. 1 8 . THE LEARNED DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE FOR THE REVENUE PLACED RELIANCE ON THE ORDER OF CIT(A). 1 9 . IN THE CASE OF GOLDEN CREST MARKETING NETWORK P. LTD., NONE APPEARED ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE. THE ASSESSING OFFICER VIDE PARA 4 STATES THAT INFORMATION WAS SOUGHT UNDER SECTION 133(6) OF THE ACT, WHICH WAS RETURNED. ADMITTEDLY, NO FURTHER LETTER WAS SENT BUT THE CIT(A) HAS ADDED ONLY 25% OF BOGUS PURCHASES AS INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE. THE REVENUE IS NOT IN APPEAL AGAINST THE RELIEF ALLOWED BY THE CIT(A), WAS FAIRLY ADMITTED BY THE LEARNED DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE FOR THE REVENUE . 20 . SMT. DEEPA KHARE, THE LEARNED AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE FOR THE ASSESSEE , APPEARING FOR MAA SARASWATI STEEL INDUSTRIES AND REFERRING TO PARA 4.2 OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER, P OINTED OUT THAT THE ASSESSEE MAINTAINS INWARD SMC GROUP CASES 15 RECORDS OF THE GOODS RECEIVED, BUT ADMITTEDLY, NO SYSTEM OF QUANTITY CONTROL WAS BEING MAINTAINED. SHE FURTHER POINTED OUT THAT ALL DETAILS OF INWARD RECORDS WERE FILED BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER, WHEREIN TH E ASSESSING OFFICER HAD SOUGHT INFORMATION UNDER SECTION 133(6) OF THE ACT. THE LEARNED AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE FOR THE ASSESSEE POINTED OUT THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS ENGAGED IN MANUFACTURE OF ITEMS WHICH WERE EXCISABLE AND CONSEQUENTLY EXCISE RECORDS WERE ALSO MAINTAINED. SHE FURTHER STRESSED THAT NO ADDITION IS WARRANTED IN THE HANDS OF ASSESSEE AS THE STATEMENT RECORDED OF PERSON INDULGING IN BOGUS PURCHASES, WAS NOT GIVEN TO THE ASSESSEE , BUT THE ASSESSING OFFICER RELIED ON THE SAID STATEMENT TO MAKE TH E ADDITION IN THE HANDS OF ASSESSEE. 2 1 . THE LEARNED DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE FOR THE REVENUE FAIRLY ADMITTED THAT COPY OF STATEMENT RECORDED OF HAWALA DEALER WAS NOT GIVEN TO THE ASSESSEE. HOWEVER, IN RESPECT OF ISSUE OF SECTION 148 OF THE ACT, THE L EARNED DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE FOR THE REVENUE POINTED OUT THAT THE SAME WAS NOT RAISED BEFORE THE CIT(A). 22 . SHRI KISHORE PHADKE, THE LEARNED AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE FOR THE ASSESSEE IN THE CASE OF CRONIMATE INDIA METALS PVT. LTD. POINTED OUT THAT COMPLETE QUANTITATIVE DETAILS OF THE GOODS DEALT IN BY THE ASSESSEE INCLUDING SO CALLED PURCHASES WERE MAINTAINED BY THE ASSESSEE AND REFERENCE WAS MADE TO THE DETAILS FURNISHED AT PAGE 2 OF THE PAPER BOOK. THE LEARNED AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE FOR THE A SSESSEE ALSO POINTED OUT THAT THE ASSESSEE FOR THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATI ON HAD DECLARED GP RATA AT 23%. I N VIEW OF THE COMPLETE DETAILS OF TRA I L OF PURCHASES AND THE SALES MADE BY THE ASSESSEE , T HE LEARNED AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE FOR THE ASSESSEE POINT ED OUT THAT THERE WAS NO MERIT IN ANY ADDITION IN THE HANDS OF ASSESSEE. SMC GROUP CASES 16 2 3 . THE LEARNED DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE FOR THE REVENUE PLACED RELIANCE ON THE ORDER OF CIT(A). 2 4 . SHRI SANKET JOSHI, THE LEARNED AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE FOR THE ASSESSEE I N THE CASE OF MAHENDRA SHANTILAL CHATURMUTHA, HUF, POINTED OUT THAT TOTAL PURCHASES WHICH WERE ALLEGED TO BE BOGUS, WERE OF RS. 7,28,428/ - . THE LEARNED AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE FOR THE ASSESSEE FIRST OF ALL, POINTED OUT THAT THIS WAS THE CASE WHERE COPIE S OF STATEMENTS WERE NOT SUPPLIED TO THE ASSESSEE, WHICH WAS RELIED ON TO MAKE THE ADDITION IN THE HANDS OF ASSESSEE AND HENCE, NO MERIT IN THE AFORESAID ADDITION. HE FURTHER REFERRED TO THE PAGE 9 OF THE PAPER BOOK, WHEREIN BEFORE INITIATING PROCEEDINGS UNDER SECTION 148 OF THE ACT, A DETAILED NOTE WAS SUBMITTED, THEREAFTER, NOTICE UNDER SECTION 148 OF THE ACT WAS ISSUED AND THE ASSESSEE ASKED FOR INFORMATION ON WHICH BASIS THE SAID NOTICE UNDER SECTION 148 OF THE ACT WAS ISSUED. THE ASSESSING OFFICER AT PAGE 6 POINTS OUT THAT INFORMATION CANNOT BE PROVIDED TO THE ASSESSEE. THE ASSESSEE POINTS OUT THAT DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, THE ASSESSEE AGAIN ASKED FOR THE INFORMATION AND MADE REPEATED REQUESTS FOR CONFRONTING THE EVIDENCE RELIED U PON, WHICH HAS NOT BEEN FURNISHED TO THE ASSESSEE. HE STRESSED THAT WHERE THE COPY OF STATEMENT RELIED UPON HAS NOT BEEN PROVIDED, THEN SUCH MATERIAL CANNOT BE USED AGAINST THE ASSESSEE. RELIANCE IN THIS REGARD, WAS PLACED ON THE RATIO LAID DOWN BY THE H ONBLE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY IN H.R. MEHTA VS. ACIT IN INCOME TAX APPEAL NO.58 OF 2001 , JUDGEMENT DATED 30.06.2016 . 2 5 . THE LEARNED DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE FOR THE REVENUE ON THE OTHER HAND, POINTED OUT THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAD ISSUED SUMMONS UND ER SECTION 131 OF THE ACT, WHICH WAS RETURNED BACK AND THE PERSON FROM WHOM THE SAID PURCHASES WERE MADE, WAS NOT TRACEABLE. SMC GROUP CASES 17 2 6 . SHRI SANKET JOSHI, THE LEARNED AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE FOR THE ASSESSEE IN THE CASE OF SMT. SUJATA SHREYAS YANDE POINTED O UT THAT CROSS APPEALS ARE FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AND THE REVENUE RELATING TO ASSESSMENT YEAR 2009 - 10 AND THE REVENUE IS IN APPEAL AGAINST THE ORDER OF CIT(A) IN ASSESSMENT YEAR 2010 - 11. HE FURTHER POINTED OUT THAT NO APPEAL HAS BEEN FILED BY THE ASSESSEE F OR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2010 - 11 , WHERE THE CIT(A) HAD APPLIED GP RATE OF 25% ON HAWALA PURCHASES. THE LEARNED AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE FOR THE ASSESSEE FAIRLY ADMITTED THAT THE PURCHASES WERE MADE FROM THE SAME PARTIES AS IN ASSESSMENT YEARS 2009 - 10 AND 2010 - 11. HE ADMITTED THAT THE STATEMENTS RECORDED WERE CONFRONTED TO THE ASSESSEE AND BECAUSE OF LOW TAX EFFECT, AFTER THE CIT(A)S ORDER, NO APPEAL WAS FILED IN ASSESSMENT YEAR 2010 - 11. HOWEVER, HE STRESSED THAT THERE IS NO WARRANT IN THE ADDITION MADE IN TH E HANDS OF ASSESSEE IN ASSESSMENT YEAR 2009 - 10, WHEREIN THE ASSESSEE HAD DECLARED GP OF 11%, AGAINST WHICH THE CIT(A) HAS APPLIED GP RATE OF 25%. 2 7 . THE LEARNED DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE FOR THE REVENUE POINTED OUT THAT IN THE CASE OF ASSESSEE, SUMMONS UNDER SECTION 131 OF THE ACT WERE ISSUED TO THE PARTIES BUT THE SAME WERE RETURNED AND NO NEW ADDRESS HAS BEEN FURNISHED BY THE ASSESSEE. 2 8 . IN THE CASE OF SHRI SHYAM CHANDUMAL GURUBAXNI , NONE APPEARED ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE AND THE LEARNED DEPARTMEN TAL REPRESENTATIVE FOR THE REVENUE POINTED OUT THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAD SOUGHT INFORMATION UNDER SECTION 133(6) OF THE ACT AND THE SAID NOTICE WAS RETURNED BACK. THE CIT(A) HAS APPLIED THE GP RATE OF 25% ON BOGUS PURCHASES TO UPHOLD THE ADDITION. SMC GROUP CASES 18 2 9 . IN THE CASE OF SHRI RAJESH JAYANTILAL SHAH S, SHRI M.A. GOHEL, THE LEARNED AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE FOR THE ASSESSEE , POINTED OUT THAT IT IS AN APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE, WHERE THE CIT(A) HAS APPLIED 15% ON BOGUS PURCHASES. THE LEARNED AUTHORIZED REP RESENTATIVE FOR THE ASSESSEE ADMITTED THAT VAT HAS BEEN PAID BY THE ASSESSEE AGAINST THE SAID PURCHASES BUT HE PLEADED THAT THE GP RATE OF 15% WAS HIGHER, WHEREIN IN SUBSEQUENT YEAR, THE GP RATE WAS ONLY 12.5%. ADMITTEDLY, THE ASSESSEE IS NOT IN APPEAL IN THE SAID CASE. 30 . IN THE CASE OF SHRI KAILASH RADHESHYAM SHARMA , SHRI PRAMOD SHINGTE APPEARED FOR THE ASSESSEE AND POINTED OUT THAT THOUGH THE ASSESSEE IS TRADER IN GOODS BUT THE EXACT TR A IL OF PURCHASES MADE AND CONSUMED ARE AVAILABLE . HE FURTHER POIN TED OUT THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD FILED CONFIRMATION OF THE SAID PARTY, WHICH IS PLACED AT PAGE 29 OF THE PAPER BOOK. HE FURTHER REFERRED TO PURCHASE BILLS ALONG WITH LORRY RECEIPTS AND ALSO THE SALE BILLS, WHEREIN SOME TRUCK NUMBERS WERE MENTIONED. THE LEAR NED AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE FOR THE ASSESSEE STRESSED THAT WHERE THE ASSESSEE WAS MAINTAINING COMPLETE DETAILS, THEN THERE IS NO MERIT IN MAKING ANY ADDITION IN THE HANDS OF ASSESSEE. HE ALSO POINTED OUT THAT VAT AMOUNT WHICH WAS NOT PAID BY THE SAID DE ALER HAS BEEN PAID BY THE ASSESSEE. HE RELIED ON THE DECISION OF THE PUNE BENCH OF TRIBUNAL IN SIDDARTH ENGINEERING CORPORATION VS. ACIT IN ITA NO.1502/PN/2013, RELATING TO ASSESSMENT YEAR 2009 - 10, ORDER DATED 29.12.2015 3 1 . SHRI M.K. KULKARNI, LEARNED A UTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE FOR THE ASSESSEE APPEARING IN THE CASE OF FLOW CONTROL PUMPS & SYSTEMS PVT. LTD. , POINTED OUT THAT THE SO CALLED BOGUS PURCHASES HAS DULY BEEN CONSUMED IN THE MANUFACTURING PROCESS OF THE ASSESSEE . ATTENTION WAS DRAWN TO THE DETAI LS PLACED AT PAGE 3 OF THE PAPER BOOK. HE ADMITTED THAT THE PARTY WAS NOT SMC GROUP CASES 19 TRACEABLE BUT THE ASSESSEE DEPOSITED VAT AGAINST THE ALLEGED DEFAULT OF HAWALA DEALER. 3 2 . THE LEARNED DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE FOR THE REVENUE HOWEVER, PLACED RELIANCE ON THE O RDER OF CIT(A). 3 3. ON PERUSAL OF RECORD AND AFTER HEARING DIFFERENT LEARNED AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVES FOR DIFFERENT ASSESSEE AND THE LEAR NED DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE, THE ISSUE ARISING IN THIS BUNCH OF APPEALS IS IN RELATION TO THE INVESTIGATION MADE BY THE SALES TAX DEPARTMENT, WHEREIN IT WAS DETECTED THAT CERTAIN PERSONS HAD NOT DEPOSITED VAT AGAINST THE SALE OF GOODS MADE BY THEM. THE SALES TAX DEPARTMENT THUS, DREW UP LIST OF SUCH DEALERS, WHO HAD NOT DEPOSIT VAT AGAINST GOODS SOLD BY THEM AND SU CH PERSONS WERE TERMED AS HAWALA DEALERS. THE RELATED TRANSACTIONS OF PURCHASES MADE BY DIFFERENT ENTITIES WERE QUESTIONED BY THE INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT, WHEREIN FROM THE LIST OF HAWALA DEALERS, THE RESPECTIVE ASSESSING OFFICERS NOTED THE EXPENDITURE OF PURCHASES MADE BY DIFFERENT ASSESSEE AND QUESTIONED THE ALLOWABILITY OF SAID PURCHASES AS DEDUCTION BY TREATING THEM AS HAWALA TRANSACTIONS. AFTER RECEIVING THE INFORMATION FROM THE SALES TAX DEPARTMENT, THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAD ISSUED SHOW CAUSE NOTIC E TO THE RESPECTIVE PERSONS WHO HAD PURCHASED THEIR GOODS FROM SUCH HAWALA DEALERS AND HAD ASKED THEM TO FURNISH NECESSARY EVIDENCES TO JUSTIFY THE CLAIM OF GENUINE PURCHASES. IN REPLY, THE ASSESSEE CLAIMS THAT WHERE IT HAD RECEIVED THE PHYSICAL DELIVERY OF GOODS AND HAD ALSO PAID THE SALE AMOUNT ALONG WITH VAT BY WAY OF ACCOUNT PAYEE CHEQUE, SIMPLY BECAUSE THE PERSON WHO HAD COLLECTED THE VAT HAD NOT PAID THE SAME TO THE SALES TAX DEPARTMENT, DOES NOT MAKE THE TRANSACTION BOGUS AND THE PURCHASES COULD NOT BE REJECTED. IN SOME CASES IN ORDER TO BUY PEACE, THE PERSONS HAD PAID VAT ON SUCH GOODS WHICH WERE PURCHASED BY THEM. IN SOME SMC GROUP CASES 20 CASES, CERTAIN ENQUIRIES COULD BE MADE FROM THE ALLEGED HAWALA DEALERS BUT IN MAJORITY OF THE CASES, THE SAID PERSONS WERE NOT FOUND AT THEIR PLACES AND EVEN CONFIRMED COPY OF ACCOUNT, COULD NOT BE FILED. ANOTHER ASPECT WAS THAT ALL THE SAID HAWALA DEALERS WERE BASED IN MUMBAI AS AGAINST THE OPERATION OF THE ASSESSEE IN PUNE AND ADJOINING AREAS. 3 4 . SIMILAR ISSUE OF PURCHASES M ADE FROM SUCH HAWALA DEALERS, WHERE THE ASSESSEE HAD FAILED TO FURNISH ANY EVIDENCE OF DELIVERY OF GOODS OR PRODUCE ANY CONFIRMATION WHATSOEVER WAS DECIDED AND THEN THE PURCHASES WERE HELD TO BE NON - GENUINE BY THE PUNE BENCH OF TRIBUNAL IN SHRI MUKESHKUMAR PUKHRAJ MEHTA VS. ITO (SUPRA), WHEREIN IT WAS HELD AS UNDER: - 10. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS AND PERUSED THE RECORD. THE ASSESSEE FOR THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION WAS ENGAGED IN THE BUSINESS OF TRADING IN HARDWARE AND FITTINGS. THE TOTAL TURNO VER DECLARED BY THE ASSESSEE FOR THE YEAR WAS RS.1.98 CRORES. THE ASSESSEE HAD DECLARED GROSS PROFIT OF RS.28,95,578/ - IN THE TRADING ACCOUNT, IN TURN DECLARING GP RATE AT 14.58%. THERE WAS INFORMATION WITH THE ASSESSING OFFICER THAT SOME OF THE PARTIES FROM WHOM THE ASSESSEE HAD MADE THE PURCHASES WERE NAMED IN THE LIST OF HAWALA DEALERS PUBLISHED BY THE SALES TAX DEPARTMENT. THE TOTAL PURCHASES FROM THE SAID PARTIES WORKED OUT TO RS.74,73,020/ - AS PER THE LIST AT PAGE 2 OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER. ALL TH E ABOVE SAID PARTIES FROM WHOM PURCHASES WERE MADE WERE LOCATED IN MUMBAI I.E. OUTSIDE THE AREA OF OPERATION OF THE ASSESSEE IN BHOSARI, PUNE. THE CASE OF THE SALES TAX DEPARTMENT AGAINST THE SAID PARTIES WAS THAT THEY WERE PROVIDING ACCOMMODATION ENTRIES AND THOUGH THERE WAS A TIN NUMBER ALLOTTED TO EACH OF THEM, BUT THEY HAD NOT PAID ANY VAT ALLEGED TO HAVE BEEN COLLECTED FROM THE RESPECTIVE PERSONS TO WHOM SALES HAD BEEN MADE. THE ASSESSEE WAS ONE SUCH PERSON TO WHOM THE SALES WERE MADE BY THE SAID PAR TIES WHO WERE ENLISTED BY THE SALES TAX DEPARTMENT. THE SALES TAX DEPARTMENT ALSO FOUND THAT THE SAID PARTIES WERE NOT AVAILABLE AT THE GIVEN ADDRESSES AND HENCE, THESE WERE TREATED AS HAWALA DEALERS. THE ASSESSING OFFICER DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS AFTER NOTING THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD MADE THE PURCHASES FROM THE SAID HAWALA DEALERS, HAD ASKED THE ASSESSEE TO PRODUCE THE SAID PARTIES FOR VERIFICATION. IN ADDITION, THE ASSESSING OFFICER ALSO REQUISITIONED THE ASSESSEE TO PRODUCE THE SUPPORT ING BILLS ALONG WITH RELATED DETAILS I.E. DELIVERY CHALLANS FOR THE GOODS, RECEIPTS FROM OCTROI PAID IN RESPECT OF GOODS ALLEGED TO HAVE BEEN PURCHASED FROM THE ABOVE SAID PARTIES. IN REPLY, THE ASSESSEE EXPRESSED HIS INABILITY TO PRODUCE THE PARTIES. HE FURTHER STATED THAT HE WAS NOT IN A POSITION TO PRODUCE ANY OCTROI RECEIPTS OR ANY OTHER CORROBORATIVE EVIDENCE IN SUPPORT OF THE PURCHASES ALLEGED TO HAVE BEEN MADE FROM THE SAID PARTIES. IN VIEW THEREOF, WHERE THE ASSESSEE WAS NOT IN A POSITION TO PROD UCE ANY CORROBORATIVE EVIDENCE TO SUPPORT THE ALLEGED PURCHASES MADE FROM THE SAID PARTIES, THE ASSESSING OFFICER SHOW CAUSED THE ASSESSEE THAT SINCE THE PARTIES WERE BLACKLISTED BY THE SALES TAX DEPARTMENT AS HAWALA DEALERS, THE PURCHASES ALLEGED TO HAVE BEEN MADE FROM THEM WOULD BE TREATED AS BOGUS AND NOT GENUINE PURCHASES. THE SAID SHOW CAUSE NOTICE ISSUED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER WAS VIDE ORDER SHEET ENTRY DATED 04.03.2013 AS TO WHY THE ALLEGED PURCHASES MADE FROM THE SAID PARTIES TOTALLING RS.74,73,0 20/ - SHOULD NOT BE DISALLOWED AND ADDED TO HIS TOTAL SMC GROUP CASES 21 INCOME. SUFFICIENT OPPORTUNITY WAS GIVEN TO THE ASSESSEE AND THE LEARNED AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE FOR THE ASSESSEE IN TURN, STATED THAT SINCE THE PARTIES ARE INCLUDED IN THE LIST OF HAWALA DEALERS, THE AMOUNT OF PURCHASES CLAIMED FROM THE SAID PARTIES MAY BE ADDED TO THE TOTAL INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE. THE ASSESSING OFFICER ACCORDINGLY, DISALLOWED THE ALLEGED PURCHASES OF RS.74,73,020/ - AND ADDED TO THE TOTAL INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE, TREATING THE SAME AS BOGUS PURCHASES. SINCE THE ASSESSEE FURNISHED INACCURATE PARTICULARS OF INCOME AND ALSO CONCEALED THE PARTICULARS OF INCOME, PENALTY PROCEEDINGS UNDER SECTION 271(1)(C) OF THE ACT WERE SEPARATELY INITIATED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. 11. IN THE FACTS AND C IRCUMSTANCES OF THE PRESENT CASE, WHEN THE ASSESSEE AT FIRST INSTANCE WAS CONFRONTED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO PROVE THE GENUINENESS OF ITS PURCHASES MADE FROM THE PARTIES, WHO WERE LISTED AS BOGUS PARTIES BY THE SALES TAX DEPARTMENT FOR NON - PAYMENT OF V AT, THE ASSESSEE SHOWED HIS INABILITY TO PRODUCE THE SAID PARTIES. FURTHER, NO CONFIRMATION WAS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE TO PROVE THAT IT HAD MADE THE PURCHASES FROM THE SAID PARTIES. THE PARTIES WERE BASED IN MUMBAI AND THE ASSESSEE WAS BASED IN PUNE, HAD MADE PURCHASES FROM MUMBAI PARTIES AND THE ASSESSEE WAS ASKED TO PRODUCE ANY CORROBORATIVE EVIDENCE OF MOVEMENT OF GOODS FROM MUMBAI TO PUNE. THE ASSESSEE WAS ASKED TO PRODUCE OCTROI RECEIPTS AND / OR ANY OTHER CORROBORATIVE EVIDENCE IN SUPPORT TO THE MOV EMENT OF GOODS. HOWEVER, THE ASSESSEE CATEGORICALLY BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER ADMITTED THAT HE WAS NOT IN A POSITION TO PRODUCE ANY OF THE ABOVE. 12. BEFORE THE CIT(A), THE ASSESSEE THOUGH HAD FIRST ADMITTED THAT THE PURCHASES SHOULD BE ADDED AS ITS I NCOME, CHANGED ITS STAND THAT THE ENTIRE PURCHASES COULD NOT BE DISALLOWED AS BOGUS, ONCE IT WAS HELD THAT THE SALES WERE GENUINELY EFFECTED. THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE BEFORE THE CIT(A) AND EVEN BEFORE US IS THAT THE SAID PURCHASES COULD NOT BE DISALLOWED ON THE BASIS OF MATCHING PRINCIPLES. ANOTHER PLEA RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE IN THIS REGARD WAS THAT ONE OF THE PARTIES I.E. M/S. SIDHIVINAYAK ENTERPRISES, MUMBAI FROM WHOM PURCHASES OF RS.12,73,892/ - HAD BEEN MADE WERE NOT FOUND IN THE LIST OF HAWALA DEALERS . THE ASSESSEE IN THIS REGARD SUBMITTED THAT IF MOST OF THE PURCHASES ARE UNVERIFIABLE, AT BEST REASONABLE GP RATE COULD BE APPLIED TO MAKE THE ADDITION IN THE HANDS OF ASSESSEE AND THE ENTIRE PURCHASE COULD NOT BE DISALLOWED. 13. THE ONUS IS UPON THE ASSESSEE TO ESTABLISH THE ENTRIES PASSED IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT BY FIRST PROVING THAT THE TRANSACTION ENTERED INTO IS GENUINE, INCURRED FOR THE PURPOSE OF BUSINESS AND ALSO BY ESTABLISHING ITS CASE BY WAY OF CORROBORATIVE EVIDENCE. IN CASES, WHERE THE AS SESSEE CLAIMS THAT IT HAS MADE PURCHASES FROM VARIOUS PARTIES, JUST BECAUSE THE PURCHASES ARE EVIDENCED BY PURCHASE BILLS ARE NOT SUFFICIENT EVIDENCE TO ESTABLISH THE GENUINENESS OF THE TRANSACTION, ESPECIALLY IN A CASE, WHERE THERE IS EVIDENCE WITH THE AS SESSING OFFICER THAT THE TRANSACTION ENTERED INTO BY THE ASSESSEE IS BOGUS. AS REFERRED TO BY US IN THE PARAS HEREINABOVE, THE PARTIES FROM WHOM THE ASSESSEE HAD MADE THE PURCHASES WERE BLACKLISTED BY THE SALES TAX DEPARTMENT ON THE FACT THAT THEY HAD ENT ERED INTO ACCOMMODATION ENTRIES OF PROVIDING THE BILLS WITHOUT TRANSFER OF GOODS, ON WHICH THOUGH VAT WAS COLLECTED BUT WAS NOT DEPOSITED WITH THE SALES TAX DEPARTMENT. FURTHER, THE SAID PARTIES WERE NOT FOUND AT THEIR ADDRESSES. THE CESTAT HAS CONFIRMED THAT THE SAID PARTIES WERE HAWALA DEALERS, WHEREIN THE SELLER HAD COLLECTED THE TAX BUT HAD NOT PAID TO THE SALES TAX DEPARTMENT. THE SAID FACT HAD BEEN BROUGHT TO THE NOTICE BY THE LEARNED AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE FOR THE ASSESSEE. THE ASSESSEE IN THI S REGARD WANTS TO POINT OUT THAT VAT WAS COLLECTED FROM IT AND ONCE THE ASSESSEE HAS PAID VAT, THEN THE PURCHASES STAND REGULARIZED. MERELY BECAUSE THE ASSESSEE IS ABLE TO PRODUCE THE PURCHASE BILLS EVIDENCING THE VAT CHARGED TO THE ASSESSEE, DOES NOT EST ABLISH THE FACTUM OF PURCHASES BEING MADE BY THE ASSESSEE, WHICH ITEMS IN TURN, WERE SOLD BY THE ASSESSEE. THE ASSESSEE IS ENGAGED IN THE BUSINESS OF TRADING IN HARDWARE AND FITTINGS UNDER THE NAME AND SMC GROUP CASES 22 STYLE OF M/S. ARIHANT TUBES FITTINGS I.E. THE ASSESSE E CLAIMED TO HAVE MADE THE PURCHASES FROM CERTAIN PARTIES, WHICH IN TURN, WERE SOLD BY THE ASSESSEE. HOWEVER, THE ASSESSEE IS UNABLE TO PRODUCE ANY EVIDENCE WITH REGARD TO THE MOVEMENT OF GOODS I.E. ANY SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS SHOWING THE TRANSPORT OF GOODS FROM THE PARTIES AT MUMBAI TO THE ASSESSEES PREMISES AT BHOSARI, PUNE. DESPITE THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND THE CIT(A) HAVING GIVEN AMPLE OPPORTUNITY TO THE ASSESSEE TO PRODUCE THE CONFIRMATION OF PURCHASES BY WAY OF TRANSPORT RECEIPTS, WEIGH BRIDGE RECEIPT S, OCTROI RECEIPTS, ETC., THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT PRODUCED ANY EVIDENCE. ON THE OTHER HAND, WHEN ALL THESE FACTS WERE CONFRONTED TO THE LEARNED AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE FOR THE ASSESSEE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND SHOW CAUSED BY WAY OF AN ORDER SHEET NOTIC E, ALSO ISSUED TO THE LEARNED AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE FOR THE ASSESSEE, HE ADMITTED THAT THE ALLEGED PURCHASES MADE FROM THE HAWALA DEALERS SHOULD BE TREATED AS INCOME. AT NO POINT OF TIME DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, THE ASSESSEE RAISED THE PLEA OF MATCHING PRINCIPLES, UNDER WHICH IT CLAIMED THAT THERE WAS TALLY BETWEEN THE PURCHASES AND SALES AND ALSO THE CLOSING STOCK SHOWN BY IT. ONLY BEFORE THE CIT(A), THE CONCEPT OF MATCHING PRINCIPLES WAS RAISED, BUT IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY DETAILS WHATSOEVER, THE CIT(A) VIDE PARA 10 HAS GIVEN A FINDING THAT EVEN AT THIS STAGE, THE APPELLANT IS NOT IN POSITION TO DISCHARGE THE ONUS CAST UPON HIM BY PRODUCING THE PARTIES, THEIR CONFIRMATIONS, TRANSPORT DETAILS, WEIGH BRIDGE AND OCTROI RECEIPTS, ETC. T O SUPPORT HIS CASE SO THAT REMAND ORDER U/S.250(4) OF INCOME - TAX ACT CAN BE PASSED, AND IN VIEW OF THEREOF, THE PLEA OF THE ASSESSEE REGARDING MATCHING PRINCIPLES WAS DISMISSED BY THE CIT(A). 14. THE LEARNED AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE FOR THE ASSESSEE FILE D BEFORE US A VOLUMINOUS COMPILATION OF DATA, WHICH WAS HEADED AS THE CHARTS SHOWING DETAILS OF PURCHASES EFFECTED FROM SO CALLED HAWALA PARTIES AND CORRESPONDING SALES TURNED OUT FROM SUCH PURCHASES ALSO QUANTITY WISE (PARTY WISE), AS UNDER: - 1) M/S . PHOENIX STEELS 2) M/S. K.G. SALES CORPROATION 3) M/S. SIDDHIVINAYAK ENTERPRISES 4) M/S. JAMES STEEL ALLOYS P. LTD., 5) M/S. ASIAN METAL INDUSTRIES 6) M/S. MARDA STEEL TRADE P. LTD. 7) M/S. EXCEL INDUSTRIAL CORPORATION 8) M/S. VIRGO VALVE CO NTROLS LTD., 9) M/S. SURAJ STEEL INDIA 10) M/S. ASHTAVINAYAK SALES AGENCY 11) M/S. DHIREN MERCANTILE PVT. LTD. 12) M/S. ASHTAVINAYAK SALES AGENCY. 15. THE ASSESSEE HAS FURNISHED THE SAID INFORMATION IN RESPECT OF 12 PARTIES FROM WHOM THE ALLEGED PURCHASES HAVE BEEN MADE. ALONG WITH THE SAID COMPILATION OF 130 PAGES, THE ASSESSEE GAVE A CERTIFICATE THAT NO NEW EVIDENCE HAS BEEN INCLUDED, WHICH WAS NOT PLACED BEFORE LOWER AUTHORITIES. IT IS FURTHER CERTIFIED THAT ONLY FROM THE AVAILABLE SALES AND PURCHASE BILLS AND THE CHARTS HAVE BEEN PREPARED AND PRODUCED IN THIS PAPER BOOK INDICATING THE QUANTITY AND OTHER DETAILS OF MATERIAL PURCHASED AND QUANTITYWISE SALES TURNED OUT FROM SUCH BRANDED AS HAWALA PURCHASES. WHEN CONFRONTED, THE LEARNED AUTHORIZ ED REPRESENTATIVE FOR THE ASSESSEE FAIRLY ADMITTED THAT THE ENCLOSED TABULATED DETAILS WERE NOT FILED EITHER BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER OR CIT(A), BUT THE EXERCISE OF RE - CONCILIATION HAS BEEN MADE NOW. THE PERUSAL OF DATA COMPILED IN THAT PAPER BOOK REF LECTS SIMILAR ITEMS SIMILARLY NAMED HAVING BEEN CLAIMED TO HAVE DEALT BY THE ASSESSEE. HOWEVER, THE ASSESSEE HAD NOT MAINTAINED ANY STOCK DETAILS AND IN THE ABSENCE OF COMPLETE STOCK DETAILS OF PURCHASES, SALES, OPENING AND CLOSING STOCK BEING MADE BY THE ASSESSEE AND IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY EVIDENCE HAVING BEEN FILED BY THE ASSESSEE TO ESTABLISH THE MOVEMENT OF GOODS, MERE RE - CONCILIATION OF PURCHASES WITH THE SALES ON A PARTICULAR DATE, HAS NO EVIDENTIARY VALUE. THE ASSESSEE IS UNABLE TO ESTABLISH SMC GROUP CASES 23 THAT TH E GOODS PURCHASED BY IT WERE SOLD TO A PARTICULAR PERSON ON THE GIVEN DATE. NO RELIANCE CAN BE PLACED ON SUCH CHART PREPARED BY THE ASSESSEE, WHICH ADMITTEDLY WAS PREPARED FROM THE AVAILABLE SALES AND PURCHASE BILLS. THE ONUS IS UPON THE ASSESSEE THAT TH E ITEMS WHICH IT CLAIMS TO HAVE PURCHASED SHOULD HAVE REACHED HIM AND THEREAFTER, THE SAME SHOULD HAVE BEEN TRANSPORTED TO THE RESPECTIVE PARTIES TO WHOM THE SALES HAVE BEEN MADE. HOWEVER, THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT PRODUCED ANY EVIDENCE IN THIS REGARD AND IN T HE ABSENCE OF THE SAME AND ALSO IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY STOCK DETAILS BEING MAINTAINED BY THE ASSESSEE, THE ALLEGED RE - CONCILIATION EXERCISE HAS NO BASIS AND CANNOT BE RELIED ON TO ESTABLISH THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE ON MATCHING PRINCIPLES. ANOTHER ASPECT TO BE KEPT IN MIND IS THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAD FURTHER CONFRONTED THE ASSESSEE WITH THE VALUATION OF CLOSING STOCK AT THE END OF THE YEAR. DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, THE ASSESSING OFFICER FOUND THE ASSESSEE HAD NOT MAINTAINED ANY DAY - TO - DAY STOCK REGISTER AND WAS OF THE VIEW THAT THE VALUATION OF STOCK COULD NOT BE VERIFIED. WHEN CONFRONTED ON THE SAID ISSUE, THE LEARNED AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE FOR THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT DUE TO LARGE NUMBER OF ITEMS INVOLVED, IT WAS NOT PRACTI CAL TO MAINTAIN THE STOCK REGISTER. AS AGAINST THE SAME, NOW THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE BEFORE US IS THAT IT IS IN A POSITION TO RECONCILE THE PURCHASES MADE FROM HAWALA DEALERS WITH THE SALES MADE BY IT TO DIFFERENT PARTIES. HOWEVER, IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY DAY - TO - DAY STOCK REGISTER BEING MAINTAINED BY THE ASSESSEE, WE FIND NO MERIT IN THE SAID PLEA OF THE ASSESSEE. THE CIT(A) WHILE DECIDING THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE HAS FURTHER GONE ON THE ISSUE THAT WITHOUT PREJUDICE EVEN WHERE IT HAS ACCEPTED THAT THE COR RESPONDING PURCHASES WERE ENTERED INTO BOOKS OF ACCOUNT OF THE ASSESSEE, BUT THE PRESUMPTION WOULD BE THAT THE PURCHASES WERE MADE FROM ALTERNATE SOURCES. THE PURCHASES MADE FROM ALTERNATE SOURCES CORRESPONDING TO THE BOGUS PURCHASES WERE TREATED AS UNEXP LAINED EXPENDITURE UNDER SECTION 69C OF THE ACT. WE FIND THAT SIMILAR ISSUE HAS BEEN DECIDED BY THE HONBLE DELHI HIGH COURT IN CIT VS. LAMEDICA (SUPRA) AND THE HONBLE MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT IN SYSTEM INDIA CASTINGS VS. CIT (SUPRA). 16. ON THE OTHER HAND, THE LEARNED AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE FOR THE ASSESSEE BEFORE US HAS PLACED RELIANCE ON SERIES OF DECISIONS FOR THE PROPOSITION THAT WHERE THE SALES HAVE BEEN ACCEPTED IN THE HANDS OF ASSESSEE, THEN ONLY A SUITABLE PERCENTAGE OF THE PURCHASES ARE TO BE DISALLOWED. THE FIRST SUCH RELIANCE WAS ON THE DECISION OF MUMBAI BENCH OF TRIBUNAL IN M/S. BASSEIN DRUGS LTD. VS. ITO (SUPRA). EVEN BEFORE THE CIT(A), THE LEARNED AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE FOR THE ASSESSEE PLACED RELIANCE ON THE SAID DECISION. THE F ACTS OF THE SAID CASE ARE AT A DIFFERENT FOOTING, WHEREIN COMPLETE DETAILS AND DOCUMENTS WERE FILED ON RECORD, ON THE BASIS OF WHICH THE CONCLUSION OF CIT(A) WAS THAT THE ALLEGED PURCHASES HAD BEEN USED IN THE MANUFACTURING OF DRUGS AND THEREFORE, THE QUAN TITY OF SUCH DRUGS COULD NOT BE DOUBTED. HOWEVER, IN THE FACTS OF THE PRESENT CASE BEFORE US, DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, THE ASSESSEE HIMSELF ADMITTED THAT THE ENTIRE PURCHASES MAY BE ADDED IN HIS HANDS AS IT WAS MADE FROM THE BOGUS PART IES. ON A LATER DATE, BEFORE THE CIT(A), HE FOR THE FIRST TIME RAISED THE PRINCIPLE OF MATCHING CONCEPT, BUT DOES NOT FURNISH ANY DETAILS. BEFORE US, HE CLAIMS ALL THE BILLS WERE FILED WITH HIM, UNDER WHICH, HE HAS TRIED TO MATCH THE PURCHASES EFFECTED F ROM THE HAWALA DEALERS TO THE CORRESPONDING SALES, BUT NO OTHER EVIDENCE OF HOW HE HAS MATCHED THE TWO IS BROUGHT ON RECORD. THE ASSESSEE IS TRADING IN THE SAID GOODS FROM DAY TO DAY AND IT IS THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE THAT THE ITEMS PURCHASED FROM THE HAW ALA DEALERS ARE THE ONLY PURCHASES MADE OF THE SAID ITEMS. WHERE THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT MAINTAINED THE STOCK REGISTER, WHICH COULD ESTABLISH DATEWISE INFLOW OF GOODS FROM DIFFERENT PARTIES, WHICH IN TURN, WERE SOLD BY HIM TO DIFFERENT PARTIES ON DATEWISE, T HE ASSESSEE CLAIMS THAT HE HAS RECONCILED THE PURCHASES AND SALES. IN THE ABSENCE OF THE SAID DETAILS BEING MAINTAINED BY THE ASSESSEE, THE EXERCISE OF PICKING UP OF ONE ITEM AND MATCHING WITH THE ANOTHER ITEM OF SALES, AROUND THE SAME DATE, THE DATA OF P URCHASES CANNOT BE VERIFIED BY ANY OF THE AUTHORITIES AS THE ASSESSEE IS A TRADER IN THE GOODS. HE WAS NOT A MANUFACTURER OF ITEMS, WHEREIN SOME KIND OF SMC GROUP CASES 24 EXERCISE WOULD BE ESTABLISHED THAT CERTAIN ITEMS WERE UTILIZED TO GIVE THE DESIRED MANUFACTURED RESULT S. IN CASE OF TRADING, WHERE NO QUANTITY - WISE OR AMOUNT - WISE OR DATE - WISE PURCHASES HAVE BEEN MAINTAINED BY THE ASSESSEE TO RECONCILE THAT A PARTICULAR ITEM PURCHASED ON A PARTICULAR DATE, HAD BEEN SOLD BY THE ASSESSEE TO A PARTICULAR PERSON ON A PARTICUL AR DATE, IT IS NOT ONLY DIFFICULT, BUT IMPOSSIBLE TO MATCH THE PURCHASES AND SALES. EVEN IN ACCOUNTING PRINCIPLES, IT IS RECOGNIZED THAT WHERE THE ASSESSEE IS A TRADER, THEN AT BEST FIFO METHOD OR LIFO METHOD MAY BE APPLIED I.E. FIRST IN FIRST OUT AND LAS T IN FIRST OUT TO MATCH THE MOVEMENT OF GOODS. THE ACCOUNTING PRINCIPLES PROVIDED THAT THE ASSESSEE CAN MAINTAIN THE QUANTITY - WISE OR BILL - WISE AND DATE - WISE DETAILS OF THE ITEMS PURCHASED BY IT. BUT IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY SUCH DETAILS BEING MAINTAINED BY THE ASSESSEE AND IN VIEW OF THE VARIOUS ITEMS DEALT IN BY THE ASSESSEE, WE FIND NO RELIANCE OF THE DATA SUBMITTED BEFORE US, WHICH IN ANY CASE WAS NOT SUBMITTED BEFORE ANY OF THE AUTHORITIES THOUGH BEFORE THE CIT(A), THE ISSUE OF MATCHING CONCEPT WAS RAIS ED. THE CIT(A) HAS GIVEN A FINDING THAT EVEN AT THE APPELLATE STAGE, THE ASSESSEE IS NOT IN A POSITION TO DISCHARGE HIS ONUS. FURTHER, IN ORDER TO PROVE THE SANCTITY OF THE PURCHASES, THE BASIC DETAILS OF OCTROI RECEIPTS, TRANSPORTATION BILLS, DELIVERY C HALLANS, ETC. WERE NOT AVAILABLE WITH THE ASSESSEE AND THE ASSESSEE HAS ADMITTED TO THE SAME BEFORE BOTH THE AUTHORITIES BELOW. IN THE ABOVE SAID FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES, THERE IS NO ALTERNATIVE, BUT TO TREAT THE PURCHASES MADE BY THE ASSESSEE AS BOGUS AN D THE EXPENDITURE INCURRED BY THE ASSESSEE, THUS, MERITS ADDITION IN THE HANDS OF ASSESSEE. WE FURTHER PLACE RELIANCE ON THE RATIOS LAID DOWN BY THE HONBLE DELHI HIGH COURT IN CIT VS. LAMEDICA (SUPRA) AND THE HONBLE MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT IN SYSTEM I NDIA CASTINGS VS. CIT (SUPRA). 17. THE LEARNED AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE FOR THE ASSESSEE BEFORE US HAS PLACED RELIANCE ON THE RATIO LAID DOWN BY THE HONBLE BOMBAY HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. NIKUNJ EXIMP ENTERPRISES PVT. LTD. (SUPRA). IN THE FA CTS OF THE CASE BEFORE THE HONBLE BOMBAY HIGH COURT, THE ADDITION ON ACCOUNT OF BOGUS PURCHASES MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND UPHELD BY THE CIT(A), WAS DELETED BY THE TRIBUNAL, IN VIEW OF THE FOLLOWING FACTUAL POSITIONS: - (I) LETTERS OF CONFIRMATIO N FROM SUPPLIERS WERE FILED (II) COPIES OF BANK STATEMENT SHOWING ENTRIES OF PAYMENT THROUGH A/C PAYEE CHEQUES TO THE SUPPLIERS. (III) STOCK STATEMENTS WITH COMPLETE DETAILS OF OPENING STOCK, PURCHASES, SALES AND CLOSING STOCK WERE FILED. (IV) SUBSTANTI AL AMOUNT OF SALES WERE MADE TO THE GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENTS LIKE DEFENCE RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT LABORATORY, HYDERABAD. 18. THE HONBLE BOMBAY HIGH COURT UPHELD THE ORDER OF TRIBUNAL, IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE FACTUAL ASPECTS AND FURTHER HELD THAT THE DISALLOW ANCE MADE MERELY, THE PARTIES WERE NOT PRODUCED, CANNOT BE UPHELD. HOWEVER, IN THE FACTS OF THE PRESENT CASE AS POINTED OUT BY US, THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT MAINTAINED ANY STOCK DETAILS I.E. THE DETAILS OF OPENING STOCK, PURCHASES, SALES AND CLOSING STOCK, NOR HAS HE PRODUCED ANY EVIDENCE OF THE GOODS BEING DELIVERED TO HIM. FURTHER, WHEN HE WAS CONFRONTED AT THE FIRST STAGE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER OF THE NON - GENUINENESS OF THE PARTIES AND THE SAME BEING DECLARED AS BOGUS BY THE SALES TAX DEPARTMENT, THE LEAR NED AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE FOR THE ASSESSEE ADMITTED BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER THAT THE SAME MAY BE TREATED AS BOGUS AND AMOUNT MAY BE ADDED IN HIS HANDS. THE ONUS IS UPON THE ASSESSEE TO ESTABLISH THAT IT HAD MADE THE SAID PURCHASES FROM THE SAID P ARTIES. HOWEVER, WHERE THE ASSESSEE HAS FAILED TO DISCHARGE HIS ONUS AND HAS MADE A STATEMENT BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER, THEN THE RETRACTION OF SUCH STATEMENT IS POSSIBLE ONLY IF THE ASSESSEE FILES THE RELEVANT CORROBORATIVE EVIDENCE TO SMC GROUP CASES 25 ESTABLISH THE T RANSACTION. IN THE ABSENCE OF THE ASSESSEE HAVING ESTABLISHED THIS TRANSACTION BY WAY OF CORROBORATIVE EVIDENCE, MERE EXERCISE OF MATCHING SOME PURCHASES WITH SOME SALES, IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY STOCK DETAILS BEING MAINTAINED BY HIM FROM DATE TO DATE, WE FI ND NO MERIT IN THE STAND OF THE ASSESSEE AND THE SAME IS REJECTED. THE EXERCISE OF MATCHING PRINCIPLES HAS NO BASIS AND IS FUTILE EXERCISE. 19. THE LEARNED AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE FOR THE ASSESSEE PLACING RELIANCE ON VARIOUS DECISIONS AS REFERRED ABO VE, POINTED OUT THAT IN THE ABSENCE OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAVING BEEN REJECTED THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT, NO ADDITION COULD BE MADE IN THE HANDS OF ASSESSEE SINCE THE SALES MADE BY THE ASSESSEE WERE ESTABLISHED. WE FIND NO MERIT IN THE STAND OF THE ASSESSEE IN THIS REGARD SINCE THE DISALLOWANCE IN THE HANDS OF ASSESSEE IS MADE ON ACCOUNT OF SPECIFIC PURCHASES BEING HELD TO BE BOGUS. ONCE THE SPECIFIC PURCHASES ARE HELD TO BE BOGUS, THEN THE ADDITION IS TO BE MADE TO THE EXTENT OF AMOUNT OF SUCH UNVERIFIABLE AND UNSUBSTANTIATED PURCHASES. THE LEARNED AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE FOR THE ASSESSEE FURTHER PLACED RELIANCE ON SERIES OF DECISIONS BY DIFFERENT BENCHES OF TRIBUNAL AND VARIOUS HONBLE HIGH COURTS IN THIS REGARD, BUT IN VIEW OF THE PECULIAR FACTS OF THE CASE, WHERE THE ASSESSEE HIMSELF HAD ADMITTED TO THE ADDITION OF BOGUS PURCHASES FROM HAWALA DEALERS, WHEN CONFRONTED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO FURNISH THE CORROBORATIVE EVIDENCE, THE RELIANCE PLACED IS MIS - PLACED SINCE IN THE FACTS OF ALL THE OTHER CAS ES, THERE WAS NO ADMISSION BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER. HENCE, THE RATIOS LAID DOWN BY THE DIFFERENT BENCHES ARE NOT APPLICABLE TO THE FACTS OF THE PRESENT CASE. IN THE TOTALITY OF THE ABOVE SAID FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES, WE FIND NO MERIT IN THE PLEA OF THE ASSESSEE IN THIS REGARD AND UPHOLDING THE ORDER OF CIT(A), WE DISMISS THE GROUND OF APPEAL NOS.1 TO 4 RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE. 20. ANOTHER STAND TAKEN BY THE LEARNED AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE FOR THE ASSESSEE BEFORE US WAS THAT WHERE THE PAYMENTS TO THE SELLING DEALER WERE MADE BY CHEQUE, THEN IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY EVIDENCE BEING AVAILABLE WITH THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO SHOW THAT THE CHEQUES ISSUED IN FAVOUR OF THE SELLING DEALERS FOR PURCHASES EFFECTED BY THEM, HAVE COME BACK TO THE ASSESSEE, NO ADDIT ION COULD BE MADE. AS POINTED OUT BY US, IN THE FACTS OF THE PRESENT CASE, THE ASSESSEE HAD ADMITTED TO THE ADDITION OF THE PURCHASES MADE FROM THE AFORESAID PARTIES BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND IN VIEW THEREOF, NO FURTHER VERIFICATION WAS MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. ONCE THE ASSESSEE HAD PREVENTED THE ASSESSING OFFICER FROM CARRYING ON ANY EXERCISE OF ANY KIND OF VERIFICATION, THEN ON A LATER DATE, THE ASSESSEE CANNOT TAKE THE STAND THAT NO SUCH ADDITION IS WARRANTED IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY VERIFICA TION EXERCISE CARRIED OUT BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. THE ASSESSEE HAS FAILED TO FURNISH THE CONFIRMATION FROM THE PARTIES AND THE SALES TAX DEPARTMENT HAS NOT BEEN ABLE TO TRACE THE SAID PARTIES. IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY CONFIRMATION BEING FILED BY THE SAID PARTIES OR THE EVIDENCE OF THE BANK STATEMENT OF THE SAID PARTIES HAVING BEEN PLACED ON RECORD BY THE ASSESSEE TO PROVE ITS CASE, MERELY BECAUSE SUCH VIEW HAS BEEN TAKEN IN ANY OTHER DECISION, THE SAME CANNOT BE APPLIED WHERE THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT DISCHARGE D ITS ONUS. EVEN BEFORE US, THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT FURNISHED ANY EVIDENCE OF PAYMENT EXCEPT FOR MAKING THE STATEMENT THAT THE AMOUNTS WERE PAID BY WAY OF CHEQUES. IN VIEW THEREOF, WE FIND NO MERIT IN THE SAID STAND OF THE ASSESSEE. UPHOLDING THE ORDER OF CIT(A), WE DISMISS THE GROUND OF APPEAL NOS.1 TO 4. 3 5 . ANOTHER ASPECT WHICH WAS CONSIDERED BY THE TRIBUNAL WAS ADMISSION OF THE ASSESSEE BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER FOR THE ADDITION OF PURCHASES MADE FROM THE AFORESAID PARTIES AND IN THE ABSENCE OF THE ASSESSEE HAVING FILED ANY SMC GROUP CASES 26 CORROBORATIVE EVIDENCE OF DELIVERY OF GOODS, THE ADDITION WAS SUSTAINED IN THE HANDS OF ASSESSEE. 36. THE TRIBUNAL FURTHER IN ITO VS. SHRI PURUSHOTTAM SHANKAR KULKARNI (SUPRA) HAD CONSIDERED THE CASE OF BOGUS PURCHASES MADE FRO M A CONCERN, WHEREIN NO CONFIRMATION WAS FILED NOR ANY COPY OF THE ACCOUNT OF THE SAID PARTY WAS FILED OR EVEN THE PARTY WAS PRODUCED. THE ASSEESSEE WAS ASKED TO PRODUCE THE EVIDENCE OF DELIVERY OF SAID GOODS TO DIFFERENT SITES OF THE ASSESSEE, BUT THE AS SESSEE WAS UNABLE TO COMPLY WITH THE DIRECTIONS OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN THIS REGARD. FURTHER, EVEN PAYMENT AGAINST SUCH PURCHASES WAS OUTSTANDING TILL CLOSE OF THE YEAR AND EVEN TILL THE DATE OF LAST HEARING OF THE ASSESSMENT. THE ASSESSEE HAD NO REC ORD OF PURCHASES BEING MADE AND THE DETAILS OF UTILIZATION OF RAW MATERIAL AND IN THE ABSENCE OF THE SAME, THE RATIO LAID DOWN BY THE TRIBUNAL IN SHRI MUKESHKUMAR PUKHRAJ MEHTA VS. ITO (SUPRA) WAS APPLIED TO UPHELD THE ADDITION MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICE R ON ACCOUNT OF BOGUS PURCHASES. THE TRIBUNAL HAD IN TURN, RELIED ON THE RATIO LAID DOWN BY THE PUNE BENCH OF TRIBUNAL IN M/S. KOLTE PATIL DEVELOPERS LTD. VS. DCIT IN ITA NOS.1411 TO 1415/PN/2013, RELATING TO ASSESSMENT YEARS 2003 - 04, 2005 - 06 & 2007 - 08 TO 2009 - 10 AND IN DCIT VS. M/S. KOLTE PATIL DEVELOPERS LTD. IN ITA NOS.1478 TO 1483/PN/2013, RELATING TO ASSESSMENT YEARS 2004 - 05 TO 2009 - 10, ORDER DATED 20.02.2015. THE TRIBUNAL HAD ALSO TAKEN NOTE OF THE DECISION OF THE HONBLE BOMBAY HIGH COURT IN CIT VS . NIKUNJ EXIMP ENTERPRISES PVT. LTD. IN ITA NO.5604 OF 2010 , WHEREIN IT WAS HELD THAT WHERE LETTERS OF CONFIRMATION FROM SUPPLIERS WERE FILED AND EVEN COPIES OF BANK STATEMENTS SHOWING ENTRIES OF PAYMENT THROUGH ACCOUNT PAYEE CHEQUE TO THE SUPPLIERS WAS FI LED ALONG WITH STOCK STATEMENTS WITH COMPLETE DETAILS OF OPENING STOCK, PURCHASES, SALES AND CLOSING STOCK WERE FILED AND WHERE SUBSTANTIAL AMOUNT OF SALES WERE MADE TO THE GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENT, MERELY BECAUSE SMC GROUP CASES 27 THE PARTIES COULD NOT BE PRODUCED, THE ADDITI ON COULD NOT BE UPHELD IN THE HANDS OF ASSESSEE. SINCE IN THE FACTS OF THE CASE BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL, THE ASSESSEE HAD NOT MAINTAINED ANY STOCK DETAILS NOR PRODUCED ANY EVIDENCE OF GOODS DELIVERY TO HIM AND FURTHER, WHERE THE ASSESSEE WHEN CONFRONTED HAD A DMITTED BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER THAT THE PURCHASES MAY BE TREATED AS BOGUS AND AMOUNT MAY BE ADDED IN HIS HANDS, THE TRIBUNAL APPLYING THE RATIO OF SHRI MUKESHKUMAR PUKHRAJ MEHTA VS. ITO (SUPRA) , HAD UPHELD THE ADDITION IN THE HANDS OF ASSESSEE. RETR ACTION OF THE STATEMENT MADE BY THE ASSESSEE BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER WAS NOT ALLOWED WHERE THE ASSESSEE HAS FAILED TO DISCHARGE THE ONUS. 3 7 . THE ISSUE OF BOGUS PURCHASES FURTHER AROSE BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL IN M/S. CHETAN ENTERPRISES VS. ACIT (SUPRA) A ND IN M/S. PATCO PRECISION COMPONENTS PVT. LTD. VS. ACIT (SUPRA) , WHEREIN THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE WAS THAT IN THE ABSENCE OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER PROVIDING STATEMENT AND ALSO CROSS - EXAMINATION TO THE ASSESSEE, ON THE BASIS OF WHICH STATEMENT, ADDITION WA S MADE IN THE HANDS OF ASSESSEE, THE SAID ADDITION IS NOT WARRANTED IN THE HANDS OF ASSESSEE. IN THE FACTS OF THE CASE BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL, THE SALES TAX DEPARTMENT HAD DECLARED THE SAID PARTIES TO BE HAWALA DEALERS AND INFORMATION IN RESPECT OF THE SAME WAS SENT TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER, WHEREIN THE ASSESSEE HAD MADE PURCHASES FROM SIX OF THE PARTIES, WHO WERE IN THE LIST OF HAWALA DEALERS. THE ASSESSING OFFICER THEREIN HAD RECEIVED THE INFORMATION AND HAD CONFRONTED THE ASSESSEE WITH THE SAID INFORMATIO N AND HAD ALSO ISSUED SUMMONS UNDER SECTION 133(6) OF THE ACT FROM WHOM PURCHASES WERE MADE, BUT THE NOTICES WERE RETURNED UNSERVED. SINCE NONE OF THE PARTIES WERE AVAILABLE ON GIVEN ADDRESS, THE ASSESSEE WAS ASKED TO PRODUCE THE SAID PARTIES AND CONFIRM THE TRANSACTION. THE ASSESSEE IN TURN, SUBMITTED THE PURCHASE BILLS, CONSEQUENT SALE BILLS, WEIGHT BRIDGE RECEIPTS AND TRANSPORTATION SMC GROUP CASES 28 RECEIPTS IN ORDER TO ESTABLISH THAT THE TRANSACTION OF PURCHASES WERE GENUINE. THE PAYMENTS AGAINST THE PURCHASES WERE M ADE THROUGH BANKING CHANNEL AND THE COPY OF THE BANK STATEMENT WAS ALSO FURNISHED. IT WAS FURTHER CLAIMED BY THE ASSESSEE THEREIN THAT NO CASE WAS MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER AGAINST THE SAID PAYMENTS THAT CASH HAD BEEN WITHDRAWN AND HANDED OVER TO THE ASSESSEE. THE ASSESSEE ALSO VOLUNTARILY REVISED HIS RETURN UNDER THE MVAT ACT BY WITHHOLDING THE SAID CLAIM OF SET OFF OF CLAIM UNDER THE RETURN AND PAID THE VAT WITH INTEREST. THE ASSESSEE ALSO TALLIED THE PURCHASES Q UANTITATIVE - WISE WITH THE SALES, WHE RE THE QUANTITY OF GOODS PURCHASED FROM THE SO CALLED HAWALA DEALERS TALL IED WITH THE SUPPLIES MADE BY THE SUPPLIERS. THE TRANSPORTATION DETAILS WERE ALSO FILED INCLUDING BILLS OF TRANSPORTATION AND OCTROI PAYMENTS. IN THE SAID CASE, THE ASSESSING OFFICE R PROVIDED STATEMENTS RECORDED OF THREE PERSONS AND IN RESPECT OF BALANCE PARTIES, NO DOCUMENTS OR PAPERS W ERE CONFRONTED TO THE ASSESSEE. THE ASSESSEE HAD ASKED FOR THE STATEMENT OF ALL THE PARTIES. THE TRIBUNAL IN SUCH CIRCUMSTANCES, WHERE EVEN THE COP Y OF STATEMENT OR ANY OTHER EVIDENCE WAS NOT SUPPLIED TO THE ASSESSEE, HELD THAT NO ADDITION TO THE EXTENT OF PURCHASES MADE FROM THE SAID PARTIES WAS WARRANTED IN THE HANDS OF ASSESSEE, IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY EVIDENCE. FURTHER, WITH REGARD TO THE PURCHASE S WHICH WERE BACKED BY PURCHASE BILLS AND EVIDENCE OF TRANSPORTATION, WHERE THE ASSESSEE HAD ALSO MADE AVAILABLE THE EVIDENCE OF SALE OF THE SAID GOODS AND WHERE THE ASSESSEE HAD CLAIMED THE BENEFIT OF VAT, THEN THE TRIBUNAL HELD THAT ADDITION IS TO BE MAD E TO THE EXTENT OF 10% OF THE ALLEGED HAWALA PURCHASES OVER AND ABOVE THE GP SHOWN BY THE ASSESSEE IN ITS BOOKS OF ACCOUNT. THE TRIBUNAL ALSO REFERRED TO ITS EARLIER DECISION IN M/S. KOLTE PATIL DEVELOPERS LTD. VS. DCIT (SUPRA) AND SHRI MUKESHKUMAR PUKHRA J MEHTA VS. ITO (SUPRA) HELD THAT IN VIEW OF THE FACTS OF THE CASE, THE SAID PRINCIPLES WERE NOT APPLICABLE. THE RELEVANT FINDINGS OF THE TRIBUNAL ARE AS ORDER: - SMC GROUP CASES 29 9. ON PERUSAL OF RECORD AND AFTER HEARING BOTH THE LEARNED AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVES, THE I SSUE WHICH NEEDS ADJUDICATION IN THE PRESENT APPEAL IS IN RELATION TO THE PURCHASES MADE BY THE ASSESSEE. THE ASSESSEE CLAIMS THAT THE PURCHASES WERE MADE IN THE REGULAR COURSE OF CARRYING ON THE BUSINESS FROM PARTIES WHO WERE REGISTERED WITH THE SALES TA X DEPARTMENT AND HAD VAT NUMBER. HOWEVER, THE SALES TAX DEPARTMENT HAD DECLARED THEM TO BE HAWALA DEALERS I.E. PARTIES WHO WERE REGISTERED WITH THE SALES TAX DEPARTMENT BUT HAD NOT PAID THE REQUISITE VAT. INFORMATION IN RESPECT OF AFORESAID HAWALA DEALER S WERE SENT TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER SINCE THE ASSESSEE HAD MADE PURCHASES FROM SIX OF THE PARTIES WHO WERE IN THE LIST OF HAWALA DEALERS. THE SAID DEALERS HAD COLLECTED VAT FROM THE CUSTOMERS INCLUDING THE ASSESSEE BUT HAD NOT PAID THE SAME TO THE STATE TREASURY. THE ASSESSING OFFICER ON RECEIVING THE AFORESAID INFORMATION HAD REOPENED THE ASSESSMENT IN THE CASE OF ASSESSEE AND HAD CONFRONTED THE ASSESSEE WITH THE AFORESAID INFORMATION. THE ASSESSING OFFICER ALSO ISSUED SUMMONS UNDER SECTION 133(6) OF T HE ACT TO THE SAID SIX PARTIES FROM WHOM PURCHASES WERE MADE BUT THE SAID NOTICES WERE RETURNED UNSERVED SINCE NONE OF THE PARTIES WERE AVAILABLE ON THE GIVEN ADDRESSES. THE ASSESSEE IN THIS REGARD WAS ASKED TO PRODUCE THE SAID PARTIES AND CONFIRM THE TRA NSACTIONS. THE ASSESSEE IN REPLY, CLAIMS THAT IT HAD SUBMITTED PURCHASE BILLS, CONSEQUENT SALE BILLS, WEIGHBRIDGE RECEIPTS AND TRANSPORTATION RECEIPTS IN ORDER TO ESTABLISH THAT THE TRANSACTION OF PURCHASES WAS GENUINE. THE ASSESSEE FURTHER CLAIMS THAT T HE PAYMENTS AGAINST THESE PURCHASES WERE MADE THROUGH BANKING CHANNEL AND THE COPY OF BANK STATEMENT WAS FURNISHED IN THIS REGARD. THE ASSESSEE FURTHER CLAIMS THAT NO CASE HAS BEEN MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER AGAINST THE SAID PAYMENTS MADE BY THE ASSESS EE TO THE SAID PERSONS THAT CASH HAD BEEN WITHDRAWN AND HANDED OVER TO THE ASSESSEE. ANOTHER ASPECT WHICH THE ASSESSEE POINTS OUT IS THAT WHEN HE CAME TO KNOW THAT THE VAT COLLECTED BY THE SAID DEALERS HAS NOT BEEN DEPOSITED WITH THE SALES TAX DEPARTMENT, HE VOLUNTARILY REVISED HIS RETURN UNDER MVAT ACT BY WITHDRAWING THE SET OFF OF CLAIM IN THE EARLIER RETURN AND PAID THE TAXES WITH INTEREST. ANOTHER EXERCISE CARRIED OUT BY THE ASSESSEE WITH REGARD TO PURCHASES AND SALES WAS THAT THE SAME QUANTITY OF GOO DS RECEIVED WERE SOLD TO THEIR CUSTOMERS, WHEREIN THE QUANTITY OF GOODS PURCHASED FROM SO - CALLED HAWALA DEALERS TALLIED WITH THE SUPPLIES MADE BY THE ASSESSEE TO ITS CUSTOMERS. THE TRANSPORTATION EXPENDITURE IN RESPECT OF GOODS PURCHASED FROM THE SAID PAR TIES WAS INCURRED BY THE ASSESSEE THROUGH ACCOUNT PAYEE CHEQUES. THE BILLS OF TRANSPORTATION INCLUDING OCTROI WERE MADE AVAILABLE BY THE ASSESSEE. IN THIS REGARD, THE ASSESSEE CLAIMS THAT THE PURCHASES MADE BY IT WERE GENUINE. THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAD SHOW CAUSED THE ASSESSEE TO EXPLAIN THE PURCHASES FROM SIX PARTIES ON THE BASIS OF INFORMATION RECEIVED FROM THE SALES TAX DEPARTMENT. THE LIST OF PARTIES TOTALING RS.31,98,665/ - IS AS UNDER: - NAME OF THE PARTY AMOUNT 1) SANDOZ STEEL 10,79,483 2) ADIJIN ENTERPRISES 2,39,460 3) HITEN ENTERPRISES 2,30,583 4) BHAVANI TRADE LINK 3,42,417 5) MERCURY ENTERPRISES 3,76,239 6) AMAR ENTERPRISES 9,30,483 TOTAL 31,98,665 10. HOWEVER, THE ASSESSING OFFICER EXCEPT FOR PROVIDING THE STATEMENTS OF THREE PARTIES I .E. PROPRIETOR OF HITEN ENTERPRISES, PROPRIETOR OF MERCURY ENTERPRISES AND PROPRIETOR OF BHAVANI TRADE LINK, WHEREIN THE PURCHASES TOTALED TO RS.9,49,240/ - . NO DOCUMENTS OR PAPERS IN RESPECT OF PURCHASES FROM AMAR ENTERPRISES OF RS.9,30,483/ - , SANDOZ STEE L OF RS.10,79,483/ - AND ADIJIN ENTERPRISES OF RS.2,39,460/ - HAS BEEN CONFRONTED TO THE ASSESSEE. IN THE FRIST INSTANCE, THE BASIC PRINCIPLE OF NATURAL JUSTICE DEMAND THAT IN CASE ANY DOCUMENT IS TO BE USED AGAINST THE ASSESSEE, THEN THE SAME SHOULD BE CON FRONTED TO THE ASSESSEE BEFORE IT CAN BE RELIED UPON. THE ASSESSEE SMC GROUP CASES 30 ADMITTEDLY, HAD ASKED FOR STATEMENTS AND / OR ANY OTHER DOCUMENTS WHICH HAVE NOT BEEN SUPPLIED TO THE ASSESSEE. THE LEARNED AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE FOR THE ASSESSEE BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL POINTED OUT THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAD PROVIDED STATEMENTS OF THREE PARTIES FROM WHOM THE PURCHASES TOTALING RS.9,49,240/ - WERE MADE AND NO STATEMENTS OF OTHER PARTIES TOTALING PURCHASES RS.22,49,425/ - WERE MADE AVAILABLE TO THE ASSESSEE. HOWEVER, THE PERUSAL OF LIST OF THE COMPANIES FILED BEFORE THE CIT(A), COPY OF WHICH IS FILED ALONG WITH APPEAL MEMO REFLECTS THAT THERE IS DIFFERENCE IN THE FIGURES OF PURCHASES THOUGH THE TOTAL IS SHOWN AT RS.31,98,665/ - . FURTHER, THE ASSESSEE CLAIMS IN THE STATEME NT OF FACTS THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAD NOT SUPPLIED ANY EVIDENCE IN RESPECT OF PURCHASES OF RS.13,18,943/ - TO PROVE THAT THE SAME WERE NON - GENUINE. IT IS FURTHER STATED THAT IN RESPECT OF REMAINING PURCHASES OF RS.18,79,722/ - , THE ASSESSING OFFICER HA S RELIED ON STATEMENTS OF FOUR SUPPLIERS, WHOSE BILLS WERE SUPPLIED TO THE TRIBUNAL. IN THE PAPER BOOK, THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED THE COPIES OF STATEMENTS OF THREE PARTIES AT PAGES 106 TO 122 BUT IN THE STATEMENT OF FACTS, THE ASSESSEE ADMITS TO HAVE RECEIVE D THE STATEMENT OF FOUR SUPPLIERS. BEFORE THE CIT(A) ALSO, THE CLAIM OF ASSESSEE WAS THAT NO STATEMENTS OR EVIDENCE IN RESPECT OF IMPUGNED PURCHASES TO THE EXTENT OF RS.14,32,856/ - HAS BEEN PROVIDED. THIS ASPECT CAME TO THE KNOWLEDGE OF TRIBUNAL ONLY WHI LE DECIDING THE PRESENT APPEAL AND IN VIEW THEREOF, THE MATTER NEEDS TO BE SET ASIDE TO THE FILE OF ASSESSING OFFICER FOR VERIFYING THE COPIES OF STATEMENTS SUPPLIED TO THE ASSESSEE AND THUS, THE TOTAL AMOUNT OF PURCHASES IN THIS REGARD. IN CASE THE BASIC DOCUMENTS ARE NOT AVAILABLE WITH THE ASSESSING OFFICER, THEN MERELY ON THE BASIS OF ALLEGATION OF IMPUGNED PURCHASES FROM HAWALA DEALERS, NO ADDITION IS WARRANTED IN THE HANDS OF ASSESSEE. HOWEVER, IN CASE THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS COPIES OF STATEMENTS, THE SAME NEEDS TO BE SUPPLIED TO THE ASSESSEE IN ORDER TO GIVE CHANCE TO THE ASSESSEE TO PROVE HIS CASE. IN CASE ANY OF THE STATEMENTS ARE NOT AVAILABLE WITH THE ASSESSING OFFICER, NO ADDITION TO THE EXTENT OF PURCHASES MADE FROM THE SAID PARTIES IS WARRA NTED IN THE HANDS OF ASSESSEE, IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY EVIDENCE. 11. NOW, COMING TO THE CLAIM OF ASSESSEE VIS - - VIS THE IMPUGNED PURCHASES, WHERE THE SAID PURCHASES ARE BACKED BY PURCHASE BILLS AND THE ASSESSEE IS ABLE TO ESTABLISH THE TRANSPORTATION OF G OODS BY WAY OF WEIGHBRIDGE BILLS, COPIES OF TRANSPORTATION BILLS AND FURTHER, WHERE THE ASSESSEE HAS ALSO MADE AVAILABLE THE EVIDENCE OF SALE OF SAID GOODS WHICH WERE PURCHASED FROM SIX PARTIES, THEN PRIMA FACIE THE ASSESSEE HAS ESTABLISHED ITS CASE. ANOT HER ASPECT TO BE KEPT IN MIND IS THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS ALSO ON ITS OWN MOTION NOT CLAIMED THE BENEFIT OF VAT WHICH HAS NOT BEEN DEPOSITED BY HAWALA DEALERS AND HAS REVISED ITS RETURN OF INCOME FILED UNDER MVAT ACT. THE FACTUM OF PURCHASES BEING MADE BY TH E ASSESSEE STANDS ESTABLISHED IN VIEW OF SUCH CIRCUMSTANCES. HOWEVER, THE BENEFIT OF PURCHASES BEING MADE FROM GREY MARKET, NEEDS ESTIMATION IN THE HANDS OF ASSESSEE. IN THIS REGARD, THE ORDER OF CIT(A) IS CONFIRMED IN ESTIMATING THE ADDITION @ 10% OF AL LEGED HAWALA PURCHASES. THE QUANTUM OF HAWALA PURCHASES WOULD BE WORKED OUT BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER AFTER GIVING REASONABLE OPPORTUNITY OF HEARING TO THE ASSESSEE, IN LINE WITH THE DIRECTIONS HEREINABOVE. 12. NOW, COMING TO THE RATIO LAID DOWN BY THE TR IBUNAL IN KOLTE PATIL DEVELOPERS LTD. VS. DCIT (SUPRA), WHEREIN THE STATEMENTS OF HAWALA SUPPLIERS WERE RECORDED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND WERE CONFRONTED TO THE ASSESSEE AND THE OPPORTUNITY OF CROSS - EXAMINATION IS ALSO GRANTED. HOWEVER, THE ASSESSEE D ID NOT AVAIL THE SAME. FURTHER, TRANSPORTATION RECEIPTS COULD NOT BE FURNISHED IN RESPECT OF ANY OF THE SUPPLIERS AND IN THIS VIEW, THE PURCHASES MADE FROM THE SAID PARTIES WERE ADDED AS INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE. ANOTHER PROPOSITION WHICH HAS BEEN LAID DOW N BY THE TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF ITO VS. SHRI PURUSHOTTAM SHANKAR KULKARNI IN ITA NO.991/PN/2012, RELATING TO ASSESSMENT YEAR 2009 - 10, ORDER DATED 07.04.2016, WHEREIN THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS NOTED THE PAYMENTS IN RESPECT OF ALLEGED BOGUS PURCHASES WERE O UTSTANDING EVEN AS ON THE DATE OF COMPLETION OF ASSESSMENT. FURTHER, THE ASSESSEE WAS NOT ABLE TO FURNISH ANY EVIDENCE RELATING TO TRANSPORTATION OF SMC GROUP CASES 31 GOODS. FURTHER, IN THE CASE OF MUKESHKUMAR PUSHKARAJ MEHTA VS. ITO (SUPRA), THE ASSESSEE HIMSELF ADMITTED BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER THAT THE PURCHASES MADE FROM THE IMPUGNED HAWALA DEALERS WAS TREATED AS BOGUS AND ADDED TO ITS INCOME. IN THIS REGARD, THERE WAS NO QUESTION OF GRANTING OPPORTUNITY TO CROSS - EXAMINE AND THE PLEA OF ASSESSEE REGARDING GENUINENE SS OF SALES WAS NOT MADE BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND FURTHER, NO EVIDENCE IN THE FORM OF DELIVERY CHALLANS FURNISHED BY THE ASSESSEE AND HENCE, THE PURCHASES WERE ADDED IN THE HANDS OF ASSESSEE. 13. THE FACTS OF THE PRESENT CASE AS POINTED OUT IN T HE PARAS HEREINABOVE ARE AT SLIGHT VARIANCE. THE FIRST ASPECT WAS THE SAID PARTIES ARE HAWALA DEALERS AND THE ASSESSEE HAS MADE PURCHASES FROM SUCH HAWALA DEALERS, WHO THOUGH COLLECTED VAT BUT HAD NOT DEPOSITED IN THE GOVERNMENT TREASURY, IS COMMON IN RES PECT OF THE CASES. HOWEVER, IN THE PRESENT CASE BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL, THE ASSESSEE CLAIMS THAT IT HAD MADE AVAILABLE THE EVIDENCE PROVING THE GENUINENESS OF PURCHASES MADE BY IT BY WAY OF COPIES OF TRANSPORTATION RECEIPTS, WEIGHBRIDGE RECEIPTS AND ALSO THE BILLS OF TRANSPORTATION. ANOTHER ASPECT WHICH IS AT VARIANCE FROM THE OTHER CASES IS THAT THE PAYMENT IN THE CASE HAS BEEN MADE BY CHEQUE. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE SAID CIRCUMSTANCES, WHERE THE ASSESSEE CAN ESTABLISH ITS CASE OF DELIVERY OF GOODS AND ITS ON WARD TRANSMISSION BY WAY OF SALE BILLS OF NEARLY THE SAME QUANTITY, THE ENTIRE PURCHASES CANNOT BE DISREGARDED. IN THE PARAS HEREINABOVE, THE ADDITION TO THE EXTENT OF 10% OF THE QUANTUM OF HAWALA PURCHASES HAS BEEN ADDED IN THE HANDS OF ASSESSEE AND THE SAID ADDITION WOULD MEET THE ENDS OF JUSTICE, AS THE PURCHASES ARE ADMITTEDLY MADE FROM HAWALA PARTIES. THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS DIRECTED TO COMPUTE THE QUANTUM IN RESPECT OF EVIDENCES FURNISHED BY HIM TO THE ASSESSEE IN THE FORM OF STATEMENTS RECORDED OF THE OTHER PERSONS. WHERE NO SUCH STATEMENTS OR ANY OTHER EVIDENCE IN RESPECT OF ANY PERSON IS MADE AVAILABLE TO THE ASSESSEE, THEN SUCH QUANTUM IS NOT TO BE INCLUDED IN THE HANDS OF ASSESSEE FOR COMPUTING ADDITION ON THIS COUNT. THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL RA ISED BY THE ASSESSEE IN BOTH THE APPEALS ARE ALLOWED AS INDICATED ABOVE. ITA NO.695/PN/2016 (ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2009 - 10) 14. THE PRESENT APPEAL WAS ALSO HEARD ALONG WITH OTHER TWO APPEALS. THE LEARNED AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE FOR THE ASSESSEE FAIRLY POI NTED OUT THAT THE ISSUE ARISING IN THE PRESENT APPEAL IS IDENTICAL TO THE ISSUE IN THE SAID APPEALS EXCEPT FOR THE FACT THAT IN THE PRESENT CASE, THE ALLEGED PURCHASES WERE MADE FROM ONE PARTY M/S. VITRAG TRADERS PVT. LTD., MUMBAI TO THE TUNE OF RS.13,48,5 37/ - . THE ASSESSEE HAD ASKED FOR COPIES OF STATEMENTS RECORDED BY THE SALES TAX DEPARTMENT OF THE SUPPLIERS AND TO ALLOW CROSS - EXAMINATION. THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN THE PRESENT CASE HAS ALSO NOT SUPPLIED THE SAID STATEMENTS TO THE ASSESSEE AND THE CASE O F THE ASSESSEE THOUGH WAS THAT, THE FIRST ASPECT IN THE PRESENT CASE IS THE AVAILABILITY OF STATEMENTS RECORDED BY THE SALES TAX DEPARTMENT AND IN CASE NO SUCH EVIDENCE IS AVAILABLE, THEN THERE IS NO BASIS FOR MAKING AFORESAID ADDITION. AS DIRECTED IN THE ABOVE APPEALS, THE MATTER IS SET ASIDE TO THE FILE OF ASSESSING OFFICER TO VERIFY THE CONTENTION OF ASSESSEE IN THIS REGARD. IN CASE, NO DOCUMENT IS AVAILABLE WITH THE ASSESSING OFFICER, THEN NO ADDITION IS WARRANTED ON ACCOUNT OF HAWALA PURCHASES. OTHE RWISE, THE ADDITION HAS TO BE RESTRICTED TO 10% OF QUANTUM OF PURCHASES AS DIRECTED IN THE EARLIER APPEALS. 3 8 . THE TRIBUNAL THUS, CONCLUDED BY HOLDING THAT WHERE THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT BEEN CONFRONTED WITH THE COPIES OF STATEMENTS RECORDED BY THE SALES T AX DEPARTMENT OF THE SUPPLIERS AND NO CROSS - EXAMINATION HAS BEEN ALLOWED, THEN NO ADDITION IS WARRANTED. THERE ARE SET OF CASES WHERE THE SAID STATEMENTS SMC GROUP CASES 32 RECORDED BY THE SALES TAX DEPARTMENT ARE NOT AVAILABLE WITH THE ASSESSING OFFICER, IN SUCH CIRCUMSTAN CES ALSO, THERE IS NO BASIS FOR MAKING THE ADDITION. THE TRIBUNAL FURTHER HELD THAT IN CASES WHERE COPIES OF AFORESAID STATEMENTS HAVE BEEN GIVEN TO THE ASSESSEE AND THE ASSESSEE HAS ESTABLISHED THE TR A IL OF PURCHASES AND SALES, THEREAFTER, BY WAY OF CORR OBORATIVE EVIDENCE OF DELIVERY OF GOODS, PAYMENT THROUGH BANKING CHANNEL AND ALSO PAYMENT OF VAT, WHICH WAS NOT PAID BY THE HAWALA DEALERS, THEN ADDITION TO THE EXTENT OF 10% OF THE QUANTUM OF HAWALA PURCHASES IS TO BE MADE IN THE HANDS OF ASSESSEE, WHICH IS OVER AND ABOVE GP RATE DECLARED BY THE ASSESSEE. 3 9 . THE LEARNED DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE FOR THE REVENUE HAD RELIED ON THE RATIO LAID DOWN BY THE HONBLE HIGH COURT OF RAJASTHAN IN INDIAN WOOLLEN CARPET FACTORY VS. ITAT & ORS. (SUPRA), WHEREIN ON V ERIFICATION OF WHAREABOUTS OF MANY PERSONS FROM WHOM THE PURCHASES WERE MADE , WERE NOT KNOWN , WHERE THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAD ISSUED SUMMONS UNDER SECTION 131 OF THE ACT TO THE PARTIES AND NO PERSON IN THE NAME OF SUCH PARTY WAS FOUND, THEN THE HONBLE HIG H COURT HELD THAT THEIR LATEST ADDRESSES SHOULD HAVE BEEN SUPPLIED AND THE BURDEN WAS UPON THE ASSESSEE TO PROVE THE GENUINENESS OF THE TRANSACTION, WHERE THE ASSESSEE CLAIMED PURCHASES WERE GENUINE. HOWEVER, IN CONTRAST, THE HONBLE BOMBAY HIGH COURT IN CIT VS. NIKUNJ EXIMP ENTERPRISES PVT. LTD. (SUPRA) HAS HELD THAT WHERE ALL THE OTHER EVIDENCES WERE FILED AND MERELY BECAUSE THE PARTIES WERE NOT PRODUCED BY THE ASSESSEE, ADDITION COULD NOT BE UPHELD IN THE HANDS OF ASSESSEE. 40 . IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE SAI D RATIOS, THE PRESENT ISSUE OF BOGUS PURCHASES IS TO BE DECIDED ON THE BASIS OF FACTS OF EACH CASE. THE FIRST ASPECT IS THE INFORMATION RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER FROM THE SALES TAX DEPARTMENT IN RESPECT OF ALLEGED HAWALA DEALERS. IN MANY CASES, T HE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS SMC GROUP CASES 33 NOT EVEN RECEIVED THE COPY OF STATEMENT RECORDED OR ANY OTHER EVIDENCE FROM THE SALES TAX DEPARTMENT , EXCEPT THE LIST OF HAWALA DEALERS AND ON THE BASIS OF THE SAID LIST, THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS HAVE BEEN COMPLETED IN THE HANDS OF ASSESSEE , WHO HAD MADE THE PURCHASES FROM THE SAID PARTIES. IN CASE, NO SUCH EVIDENCE HAS BEEN RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER BEFORE MAKING ADDITION, THEN THERE IS NO WARRANT IN MAKING AFORESAID ADDITION IN THE HANDS OF ASSESSEE MERELY ON THE BASIS OF SO CALLED LIST OF HAWALA DEALERS. THERE ARE OTHER CASES, WHERE THE ASSESSING OFFICER HA D RECEIVED THE STATEMENT OF THE PERSONS WHO WE RE HAWALA DEALERS AND WHO HAD ADMITTED TO HAVE JUST ISSUED BILLS OF SALE WITHOUT DELIVERY OF GOODS. IN SUCH CIRCUMSTAN CES, THERE IS EVIDENCE AGAINST THE RESPECTIVE ASSESSEE THAT WHERE THE SELLER OF THE GOODS, HAS ADMITTED NOT TO HAVE ENTERED INTO REAL TRANSACTION OF SALE OF GOODS . A GAINST SUCH NON - TRANSACTION, THERE CAN BE NO DELIVERY OF GOODS, THEN IT IS CASE OF PASSING OF BILLS OF SALE AND PURCHASES, AGAINST WHICH NO VAT HAS BEEN PAID. SUCH BOGUS PURCHASES ARE THEN TO BE ADDED IN THE HANDS OF ASSESSEE. WHERE THE ASSESSING OFFICER HA D CONFRONTED THE ASSESSEE WITH THE INFORMATION RECEIVED, SUPPLIED COPIES OF STATEMENTS AND WHERE THE PERSONS HAVE NOT BEEN TRACED AND NO CONFIRMATION HAS BEEN FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IN THIS REGARD, THEN THE ADDITION IS TO BE MADE IN THE HANDS OF ASSESSEE ON ACCOUNT OF SUCH BOGUS PURCHASES. IN THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF SOME CASES, THE GO ODS HAVE BEEN TRANSFERRED BY SUCH HAWALA DEALERS TO THE RESPECTIVE PURCHASERS, AGAINST WHICH THE ASSESSEE HAS TO DISCHARGE ONUS OF ESTABLISHING THE TR A IL OF GOODS WHICH ARE TRANSFERRED AND FURTHER SOLD BY THEM. WHERE THE ASSESSEE IS ABLE TO PRODUCE EVIDEN CE OF PU RCHASE OF GOODS BY WAY OF WEIGHMENT BRIDGE RECEIPTS, TRANSPORTATION DOCUMENTS, PAYMENT OF OCTROI AND SUBSEQUENT SALE OF GOODS TO THE RESPECTIVE PARTIES AND / OR WHERE THE ASSESSEE HAS MAINTAINED COMPLETE QUANTITATIVE DETAILS OF PURCHASE AND SALE OF GOODS, THEN TOTAL BOGUS PURCHASES CANNOT BE ADDED IN THE HANDS OF ASSESSEE, BUT GP RATE OF 10 % IS TO BE APPLIED SMC GROUP CASES 34 ON BOGUS PURCHASES. WHERE THE ASSESSEE DOES NOT ESTABLISH ITS CASE, THEN THE COMPLETE BOGUS PURCHASES ARE TO BE ADDED AS HAWALA PURCHASES. F URTHER, IN CASES, WHERE THE STATEMENTS ARE RECORDED AND COPIES OF WHICH HAVE BEEN SUPPLIED TO THE ASSESSEE AND ASSESSEE ESTABLISHED THE CASE OF RECEIPT OF GOODS AND ITS ONWARD TRANSMISSION BY WAY OF SALE BILLS, THEN THE FACTUM OF PURCHASES BY THE ASSESSEE STANDS ESTABLISHED IN SUCH CIRCUMSTANCES. HOWEVER, THE BENEFIT OF PURCHASES BEING MADE FROM GREY MARKET, NEEDS ESTIMATION IN THE HANDS OF ASSESSEE. THE TRIBUNAL HAS ALREADY HELD THAT THE ADDITION BE MADE BY ESTIMATING THE SAME @ 10% OF THE ALLEGED HAWALA PURCHASES. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS SO HELD. IN VIEW THEREOF, THE ISSUES WHICH EMERGE ARE AS UNDER: - I . IN CASE NO INFORMATION IS RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER FROM THE SALE TAX DEPARTMENT AND NO COPY OF STATEMENT RECORDED OR ANY OTHER EVIDENCE IS RECEIVED FROM THE SALES TAX DEPARTMENT, THEN NO ADDITION IS TO BE MADE ON THE BASIS OF NAME OF HAWALA DEALER IN THE LIST PREPARED BY THE SALES TAX DEPARTMENT , WHERE THE ASSESSEE HAD ASKED FOR THE SAID INFORMATION DURING ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS . II . WHERE T HE ASSESSING O FFICER HAD RECEIVED THE STATEMENTS OF PERSONS WHO HAD ADMITTED TO HAVE JUST ISSUED BILLS OF SALE WITHOUT ANY DELIVERY OF GOODS. IN VIEW OF SUCH EVIDENCE, WHERE THE ASSESSEE HAD NOT ENTERED INTO REAL TRANSACTION OF PURCHASE OF GOODS AND IN THE ABSENCE OF A NY DELIVERY OF GOODS, THE SALES ARE BOGUS AND THE ENTIRE SALES ARE TO BE ADDED IN THE HANDS OF ASSESSEE. ADMITTEDLY, THE DEALER HAD NOT EVEN PAID VAT AGAINST SUCH PASSING OF GOODS. III . THE CASE WHERE THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAD CONFRONTED THE INFORMATION RECEIV ED FROM THE SALES TAX DEPARTMENT AND HAD SUPPLIED COPIES OF STATEMENTS RECORDED AND HAD ALSO ISSUED NOTICE UNDER SECTION 133(6) SMC GROUP CASES 35 OF THE ACT, WHERE HAWALA DEALER WAS NOT TRACEABLE AND IN THE ABSENCE OF THE ASSESSEE FAILING TO FILE ANY DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE OF DELIVERY OF GOODS, ADDITION IS TO BE UPHELD IN THE HANDS OF ASSESSEE ON ACCOUNT OF SUCH BOGUS PURCHASES. IV . THE NEXT INSTANCE IS THE CASE OF GOODS WHICH HAVE BEEN ADMITTEDLY SOLD BY THE HAWALA DEALER AND HAS BEEN RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSEE, WHO IN TURN HA D MAI NTAINED QUANTITATIVE DETAILS AND ALSO EVIDENCE OF ITS MOVEMENT I.E. TRANSPORTATION DETAILS AND QUALITY CONTROL DETAILS OF CONSUMPTION OF THE SAID MATERIAL OR EXACT DETAILS OF SALE OF THE SAME CONSIGNMENT THROUGH SAME TRANSPORTER DIRECTLY TO THE PARTY, THEN THE TOTAL PURCHASES CANNOT BE ADDED IN THE HANDS OF ASSESSEE. HOWEVER, SINCE THE PURCHASE S ARE MADE FROM THE GR E Y MARKET, SOME ESTIMATION NEEDS TO BE MADE IN THE HANDS OF ASSESSEE. THE TRIBUNAL IN M/S. CHETAN ENTERPRISES VS. ACIT (SUPRA) HAS ALREADY HEL D THAT THE ADDITION BE MADE BY ESTIMATING THE SAME @ 10% OF THE ALLEGED HAWALA PURCHASES, OVER AND ABOVE THE GP SHOWN BY THE RESPECTIVE ASSESSEE. V . ANOTHER SET OF CASES WHERE THE STATEMENTS RECORDED BY THE SALES TAX DEPARTMENT HAVE BEEN HANDED OVER TO THE AS SESSEE AND THE COPIES OF SAME HAVE BEEN SUPPLIED TO THE ASSESSEE, THEN WHERE THE ASSESSEE ESTABLISHED THE CASE OF RECEIPT OF GOODS AND ITS ONWARD TRANSMISSION, THEN THE FACTUM OF PURCHASES BY THE ASSESSEE STANDS ESTABLISHED IN SUCH CIRCUMSTANCES. HOWEVER, ESTIMATION IS TO BE MADE IN THE HANDS OF ASSESSEE BECAUSE OF PURCHASES FROM THE GREY MARKET AND FOLLOWING THE ABOVE SAID RATIO, ADDITION IS TO BE MADE BY ESTIMATING THE SAME @ 10% OF THE ALLEGE D HAWALA PURCHASES, OVER AND ABOVE THE NET PROFIT SHOWN BY THE ASSESSEE. SMC GROUP CASES 36 41 . NOW, COMING TO THE FACTUAL ASPECTS OF EA CH OF THE APPEAL, WHICH HAVE ALREADY BEEN REFERRED TO BY THE LEARNED AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE FOR THE ASSESSEE AND ALSO REFER TO THE ORDERS OF AUTHORITIES BELOW , WHERE NONE HAS APPEARED ON BEHALF O F THE ASSESSEE. 4 2 . THE LEAD CASE IS IN THE CASE OF M/S. CHHABI ELECTRICALS PVT. LTD., WHERE THE GRIEVANCE OF THE ASSESSEE IS THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER BEFORE MAKING THE ADDITION HAS NOT EVEN SUPPLIED THE COPY OF STATEMENT OR ANY OTHER EVIDENCE RECORDED BY THE SALES TAX DEPARTMENT TO ESTABLISH THAT THE PURCHASES MADE BY THE ASSESSEE WERE BOGUS. I HAVE ALREADY DECIDED THIS ISSUE IN M/S. CHETAN ENTERPRISES VS. ACIT (SUPRA) AND HELD THAT IN CASES WHERE THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS FAILED TO SUPPLY SUCH STATEM ENT RECORDED BY THE SALES TAX DEPARTMENT OR ANY OTHER EVIDENCE JUSTIFYING THE ADDITION, NO ADDITION IS TO BE MADE IN THE HANDS OF ASSESSEE. THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE ARE THUS, ALLOWED. THE LEARNED AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE FOR THE ASSE SSEE HAS FURTHER REFERRED TO VARIOUS DOCUMENTS I.E. GATE PASS, GRN AND ISSUE PASS ESTABLISH ITS CASE OF DELIVERY OF GOODS I.E. PURCHASE FROM HAWALA DEALER AND ITS ONWARDS CONSUMPTION IN THE MANUFACTURING PROCESS OF THE ASSESSEE. IN SUCH CIRCUMSTANCES, WHE RE THE ASSESSEE HAS ESTABLISHED THE TRAIL OF GOODS PURCHASED TO THE FINAL CONSUMPTION, THEN THERE IS NO MERIT IN THE ADDITION MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. THUS, THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE, ARE ALLOWED AND APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALLO WED . 4 3 . SIMILARLY, IN THE CASE OF MAA SARASWATI STEEL INDUSTRIES, THE ARGUMENT OF THE LEARNED AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE FOR THE ASSESSEE WA S THAT THE COPY OF STATEMENT HAS NOT BEEN SUPPLIED NOR ANY EVIDENCE HAS BEEN CONFRONTED TO THE ASSESSEE. THE ASSES SEE WA S ALSO MAINTAINING INWARD RECORDS OF GOODS PURCHASED AND THEIR CONSUMPTION IN ITEMS , WHICH ARE EXCISABLE IN NATURE. SMC GROUP CASES 37 FOLLOWING THE REASONING IN M/S. CHETAN ENTERPRISES VS. ACIT (SUPRA) , THE ADDITION IS DELETED. THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL RAISED BY THE AS SESSEE ARE THUS, ALLOWED AND HENCE, APPEAL OF ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED. 4 4 . THE FACTS AND ISSUE IN MAHENDRA SHANTILAL CHATURMUTHA, HUF ARE ALSO SIMILAR, WHEREIN THE ASSESSMENT WAS REOPENED UNDER SECTION 148 OF THE ACT. THE ASSESSEE TIME AND AGAIN ASKED FOR IN FORMATION AND ALSO MADE REQUEST FOR CONFRONTING THE EVIDENCE WHICH WERE RELIED UPON TO MAKE THE ADDITION ON ACCOUNT OF BOGUS PURCHASES. HOWEVER, NO SUCH EVIDENCE WAS CONFRONTED TO THE ASSESSEE AND EVEN THE COPIES OF STATEMENTS RECORDED WERE NOT GIVEN TO T HE ASSESSEE. IN THE ABSENCE OF SAME, THERE IS NO MERIT IN MAKING ANY ADDITION IN THE HANDS OF ASSESSEE. 4 5 . THE LEARNED AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE FOR THE ASSESSEE HAS RELIED ON THE RATIO LAID DOWN BY THE HONBLE BOMBAY HIGH COURT IN H.R. MEHTA VS. ACIT IN INCOME TAX APPEAL NO.58 OF 2001, JUDGMENT DATED 30.06.2016 , WHICH IN TURN, HAS RELIED ON VARIOUS DECISIONS INCLUDING THE DECISION OF APEX COURT IN M/S. ANDAMAN TIMBER INDUSTRIES VS. COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, KOLKATA IN CIVIL APPEAL NO.4228 OF 200 6, JUDGMENT DATED 02.09.2015 AND THE HONBLE HIGH COURT OF DELHI IN CIT VS. ASHWANI GUPTA REPORTED IN 322 ITR 396 (DEL) AND HELD THAT WHERE THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS FAILED TO PROVIDE COPIES OF SEIZED MATERIAL TO THE ASSESSEE NOR ALLOWED AN OPPORTUNITY TO CROSS - EXAMINE THE DEPONENT ON THE STATEMENT RELIED UPON BY THE ACIT, THEN SUCH DENIAL OF OPPORTUNITY GOES TO THE ROOT OF THE MATTER AND STRIKES AT THE VERY FOUNDATION OF THE RE - ASSESSMENT AND RENDERS THE ORDERS PASSED BY THE CIT(A) AND THE TRIBUNAL VULNERA BLE. FOLLOWING THE SAME PARITY OF REASONING AND SINCE THE PRESENT CASE IS ALSO CASE OF RE - ASSESSMENT, WE HOLD THAT THE RE - ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS INITIATED AGAINST THE ASSESSEE ARE DIRECTED TO BE ANNULLED AND THE SMC GROUP CASES 38 CONSEQUENT ORDER PASSED UNDER SECTION 143(3 ) R.W.S. 148 OF THE ACT IS THUS, INVALID. THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE ARE THUS, ALLOWED AND APPEAL OF ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED . 4 6 . IN THE CASE OF M/S. ANANT CHEMICALS, COPY OF STATEMENT WAS SUPPLIED TO THE ASSESSEE AND THE PERSON FROM WHOM P URCHASES WERE MADE WAS ALSO SUMMONED. HOWEVER, THERE WAS NON - COMPLIANCE AND ADDITION WAS MADE IN THE HANDS OF ASSESSEE. THE CIT(A) ON THE OTHER HAND, APPLIED HIGHER GP RATE TO ESTIMATE THE INCOME IN THE HANDS OF ASSESSEE ON ACCOUNT OF BOGUS PURCHASES. T HE REVENUE IS IN APPEAL AGAINST THE SAME. THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT FILED ANY APPEAL AGAINST THE ORDER OF CIT(A) AND ACCORDINGLY, UPHOLDING THE ORDER OF CIT(A), BOTH THE APPEAL S OF THE REVENUE ARE DISMISSED. 4 7 . IN THE CASE OF APEX ECOTECH PVT. LTD. AND SHRI UTTAMKUMAR CHHAGANLAL JAIN , THE ASSESSEE FAILED TO FURNISH ANY DETAILS AND IN ONE CASE, THE ASSESSEE FAILED TO FURNISH THE ADDRESS OF PERSON FROM WHOM THE PURCHASES WERE MADE. IN THE ABSENCE OF THE SAME, THE ADDITION MADE ON ACCOUNT OF BOGUS PURCHASES IS TO BE UPHELD, FOLLOWING THE RATIO LAID DOWN IN SHRI MUKESHKUMAR PUKHRAJ MEHTA VS. ITO (SUPRA) . BOTH THE APPEALS OF ASSESSEE ARE THUS, DISMISSED. 4 8 . IN THE CASE OF M/S. MODERN ENTERPRISES, THE LEARNED AUTHO RIZED REPRESENTATIVE FOR THE ASSESSEE HAS FURNISHED ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE IN RESPECT OF PURCHASES MADE FROM HAWALA DEALERS AND ITS DELIVERY AND FURTHER UTILIZATION , AND HAD MADE A REQUEST THAT THE MATTER MAY BE SENT BACK TO THE FILE OF ASSESSING OFFICER FOR VERIFICATION. THE MATTER IS SENT BACK TO THE FILE OF ASSESSING OFFICER WHO SHALL AFTER VERIFYING THE EVIDENCE AVAILABLE WITH THE ASSESSEE IN LINE WITH THE DIRECTION IN PARA 40 DECIDE THE ISSUE. THE APPEAL OF ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. S SMC GROUP CASES 39 4 9 . IN THE CASE OF GOLDEN CREST MARKETING NETWORK PVT. LTD., THE ASSESSEE FAILED TO FURNISH ANY EVIDENCE OF TRAIL OF GOODS AND THE CIT(A) HAS RESTRICTED THE ADDITION TO 25% OF THE BOGUS PURCHASES AS INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE. THE ASSESSEE HAS FAILED TO CO NTROVERT THE FINDINGS OF CIT(A) AND HAS EVEN FAILED TO APPEAR ON THE APPOINTED DATE OF HEARING. THIS IS CASE WHERE THE BOGUS PURCHASES ARE TO BE ADDED BUT THE REVENUE IS NOT IN APPEAL. CONSEQUENTLY, THE ORDER OF CIT(A) IS UPHELD. THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL R AISED BY THE ASSESSEE ARE THUS, DISMISSED. BOTH THE APPEALS OF ASSESSEE ARE THUS, DISMISSED. 50 . IN THE CASE OF CRONIMATE INDIA METALS PVT. LTD., THE LEARNED AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE FOR THE ASSESSEE STRESSED THAT IT WAS MAINTAINING COMPLETE QUANTITATIV E DETAILS OF GOODS DEALT IN AND HENCE, HAD CLEAR TRAIL OF PURCHASES AND THE SALES THEREOF OF THE SO CALLED BOGUS PURCHASES. FINDING MERIT IN THE PLEA OF ASSESSEE, I HOLD THAT THE TOTAL PURCHASES CANNOT BE ADDED IN THE HANDS OF ASSESSEE. HOWEVER, THE ASSE SSING OFFICER IS DIRECTED TO RESTRICT THE ADDITION TO THE EXTENT OF 10% OF HAWALA PURCHASES IN THE HANDS OF ASSESSEE AS THE PURCHASES ARE ADMITTEDLY, MADE FROM HAWALA PARTIES. THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE ARE THUS, PARTLY ALLOWED AND APPEA L OF ASSESSEE IS THUS, PARTLY ALLOWED . 51 . IN THE CASE OF SMT. SUJATA SHREYAS YANDE, CROSS APPEALS ARE FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AND THE REVENUE RELATING TO ASSESSMENT YEAR 2009 - 10 AND IN ASSESSMENT YEAR 2010 - 11, THE REVENUE IS IN APPEAL. THE ASSESSEE CLAIMS THAT IT HAS ALREADY FILED COMPLETE TRAIL OF GOODS PURCHASED BY IT. HOWEVER, THE C IT(A) HAD APPLIED GP RATE AT 25% OF HAWALA PURCHASES IN BOTH THE YEARS AND CONSEQUENTLY, THE PRESENT APPEALS. ADMITTEDLY, THE ASSESSEE HAS ACCEPTED THE SMC GROUP CASES 40 ORDER OF CIT(A) IN A SSESSMENT YEAR 2010 - 11 , WHEREIN THE GP RATE OF 25% ON HAWALA PURCHASES WAS APPLIED BY THE CIT(A). IT WAS ALREADY HELD THAT WHERE THE ASSESSEE HAS GIVEN TRAIL OF GOODS AND W AS MAINTAINING QUANTITATIVE DETAILS, THEN THE ADDITION AT BEST COULD BE MADE TO THE EXTENT OF 10% OF BOGUS PURCHASES IN THE HANDS OF ASSESSEE. HOWEVER, THE ASSESSEE IS NOT IN APPEAL AGAINST THE ORDER OF CIT(A), WHO HAD APPLIED GP RATE AT 25% ON HAWALA PURCHASES IN ASSESSMENT YEAR 2010 - 11 . H ENCE, THE SAME IS UPHELD. ACCORDINGLY, THE OR DER OF CIT(A) IN ASSESSMENT YEAR 2010 - 11 IS UPHELD. HOWEVER, IN ASSESSMENT YEAR 2009 - 10, THE ASSESSEE HAS POINTED OUT THAT THE FACTS AND ISSUE ARE SIMILAR AS IN OTHER CASES AND AS IN M/S. CHETAN ENTERPRISES VS. ACIT (SUPRA). ACCORDINGLY, ADDITION @ 10% O F BOGUS PURCHASES IS UPHELD IN THE HANDS OF ASSESSEE. THUS, APPEALS OF REVENUE IN ASSESSMENT YEARS 2009 - 10 AND 2010 - 11 ARE DISMISSED AND THE APPEAL OF ASSESSEE IS PARTLY ALLOWED. 5 2 . IN THE CASE OF SHIR SHYAM CHANDUMAL GURUBAXNI , THE ASSESSEE IS IN APPEA L BUT NONE APPEARED ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE. HOWEVER, THE CIT(A) HAS APPLIED GP RATE AT 25% ON BOGUS PURCHASES. THIS IS CASE WHERE THE BOGUS PURCHASES ARE TO BE ADDED BUT THE REVENUE IS NOT IN APPEAL. THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE ARE T HUS, DISMISSED AND APPEAL OF ASSESSEE IS DISMISSED . 5 3 . THE REVENUE IS IN APPEAL IN THE CASE OF SHRI RAJESH JAYANTILAL SHAH, WHEREIN THE CIT(A) HAS APPLIED GP RATE OF 15% ON BOGUS PURCHASES. THE PLEA OF THE ASSESSEE BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL WAS THAT THE GP RA TE OF 15% WAS HIGHER. SINCE THE ASSESSEE IS NOT IN APPEAL, ORDER OF CIT(A) IS UPHELD AND APPEAL OF REVENUE IS DISMISSED. SMC GROUP CASES 41 5 4 . IN THE CASE OF SHRI KAILASH RADHESHYAM SHARMA , WHERE THE REV ENUE IS IN APPEAL AGAINST THE ORDER OF CIT(A) AND ASSESSEE HAS FILE D CROSS OBJECTIONS . THE FACTS IN SHRI KAILASH RADHESHYAM SHARMA ARE AT VARIANCE, WHERE IN ADDITION TO FILING THE TRAIL OF PURCHASES MADE FROM THE HAWALA PARTIES, THE ASSESSEE CLAIMS TO HAVE FILED CONFIRMATION FROM THE SAID DEALER, WHO ACKNOWLEDGED THE AMO UNT RECEIVED AGAINST THE SAID PURCHASES BY WAY OF DIFFERENT CHEQUES ON DIFFERENT DATES. THE LEARNED AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE FOR THE ASSESSEE IN THIS REGARD POINTED OUT THAT NO ADDITION IS WARRANTED WHERE THE SAID PARTY ACKNOWLEDGES THE PAYMENT AGAINST T HE PURCHASES. HE ALSO STRESSED THAT WHERE IT IS NOT CASE OF THE REVENUE THAT THE MONEY HAD TRAVELLED BACK TO THE ASSESSEE, THEN THERE IS NO MERIT IN HOLDING THE PURCHASES TO BE BOGUS. RELIANCE IN THIS REGARD WAS PLACED ON THE RATIO LAID DOWN BY THE PUNE BENCH OF TRIBUNAL IN SIDDARTH ENGINEERING CORPORATION VS. ACIT IN ITA NO.1502/PN/2013, RELATING TO ASSESSMENT YEAR 2009 - 10, ORDER DATED 29.12.2015. I FIND MERIT IN THE PLEA OF THE ASSESSEE IN THIS REGARD. THE DEALER OF GOODS HAS ACKNOWLEDGED THE SALES MA DE BY IT AND ALSO THE PAYMENTS RECEIVED THROUGH RTGS TOTALLING RS. 10,59,646/ - . IN VIEW OF THIS ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE, THERE IS NO MERIT IN MAKING ANY ADDITION IN THE HANDS OF ASSESSEE ON ACCOUNT OF BOGUS PURCHASES . HENCE, THE CLAIM OF ASSESSEE RAISED BY WA Y OF CROSS OBJECTIONS IS ALLOWED AND APPEAL OF THE REVENUE IS DISMISSED. 5 5 . IN THE CASE OF FLOW CONTROL PUMPS & SYSTEMS PVT. LTD. , THE LEARNED AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE FOR THE ASSESSEE POINTED OUT THAT THE PURCHASES MADE BY THE ASSESSEE HAVE BEEN UTILIZ ED IN THE MANUFACTURING PROCESS. HOWEVER, HE ADMITTED THAT THE SAID PARTY WAS NOT TRACEABLE BUT THE ASSESSEE HAS DEPOSITED VAT AGAINST THE ALLEGED BOGUS PURCHASES. FOLLOWING THE PARITY SMC GROUP CASES 42 OF REASONING AS IN M/S. CHETAN ENTERPRISES VS. ACIT (SUPRA) , THE ASSE SSING OFFICER IS DIRECTED TO RESTRICT THE ADDITION BY APPLYING GP RATE AT 10% OF BOGUS PURCHASES. THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE ARE THUS, PARTLY ALLOWED AND APPEAL OF ASSESSEE IS PARTLY ALLOWED . 5 6 . IN THE RESULT, THE RESPECTIVE APPEALS OF ASSESSEE / CROSS OBJECTION AND APPEALS OF REVENUE ARE DISPOSED OF AS INDICATED ABOVE. ORDER PRONOUNCED ON THIS 28 TH DAY OF APRIL, 2017 . SD/ - (SUSHMA CHOWLA) / JUDICIAL MEMBER / PUNE ; DATED : APRIL, 2017 SATISH / GCVSR / COPY OF THE ORDER IS FORWARDED TO : 1. / THE APPELLANT ; 2. / THE RESPONDENT; 3. ( ) / THE CIT(A) - 2 , NA SHIK ; 4. / THE CIT - 2 , NASHIK 5. 6. , , , - / DR SMC , ITAT, PUNE; / GUARD FILE . / BY ORDER, // TRUE COPY // / ASSI STANT REGISTRAR, , / ITAT, PUNE
Other Referred Cases
-
Laws Referred To
-
1:1 Consultation on Business Valuations
₹1
Tax Holiday Secrets for Startups
₹0
Tax Holiday Secrets for Startups
₹0
CRM Implementation Plan
₹0
Research Collaboration Agreement
₹0
Minimum Alternate Tax (MAT): Comprehensive Overview and Key Changes under Finance Bill, 2026
Team Counselvise - February 06, 2026
From Endless Revisions to Timely Compliance: The New Era of TDS/TCS Rectification
Team Counselvise - January 30, 2026
Residency Rules: Income Tax Act, 1961 vs Income Tax Bill, 2025 — A Subtle Yet Significant Shift!
Team Counselvise - February 18, 2026