AMARDEEP SINGH ARORA, MUMBAI V. ASST CIT 20(1), MUMBAI

ITA 1339/MUM/2012

• Counselvise Citation: [2016] 133 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 3572 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 4 year(s) 4 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 02-03-2016
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Next Hearing Date: 29-02-2016
• Assessment Year: 2007-2008
• Appeal Filed On: 27-02-2012
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: RAJENDRA KUMARDR
• Keywords: Bogus purchase

Judgement Text

, , , , INCOME-TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL -ABENCH MUMBAI , BEFORE S/SH.RAJENDRA,ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND AMIT SHUKLA,JUDICIAL MEMBER ./ I.T.A. NO.1339/MUM/2012 / ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2007-08 AMANDEEP SINGH ARORA C/O., V. VAIDYANATHAN & CO. F-36, SITARAM BUILDING, PALTON ROAD MUMBAI-400 001. PAN:ADLPA 1611 P VS. ASSTT. CIT-20(1) PIRAMAL CHAMBERS LALBAUG MUMBAI. ( /APPELLANT ) ( / RESPONDENT ) REVENUE BY: SHRI RAJENDRA KUMAR-DR A SSESSEE BY: NONE / DATE OF HEARING:29.02.2016 / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT:02.03.2016 ,1961 254(1) ORDER U/S.254(1)OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT,1961(ACT) PER RAJENDRA, AM - CHALLENGING THE ORDER,DATED 22.12.2011 OF CIT(A)-31 ,MUMBAI,THE ASSESSEE HAD FILED THE PRESENT APPEAL.ASSESSEE,AN INDIVIDUAL,ENGAGED IN TH E BUSINESS OF TRADING IN TEXTILES AND FABRICS,FILED HIS RETURN OF INCOME ON 31.10.2007,DE CLARING TOTAL INCOME AT RS.10.55 LAKHS. THE ASSESSING OFFICER (AO) COMPLETED THE ASSESSMENT ,U/ S.143(3) OF THE ACT, ON 31.12. 2009, DETERMINING THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE AT RS.19,25 ,970/-.THE MATTER WAS FIXED ON 02.09. 2015,BUT NO ONE APPEARED ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE. REGISTRY WAS DIRECTED TO ISSUE THE HEARING NOTICE THROUGH REGISTERED POST (AD).ACCORDINGLY,A N OTICE WAS ISSUED AND MATTER WAS FIXED FOR HEARING FOR 29.02.2016.BUT,TODAY ALSO NONE APPEARED TO REPRESENT THE CASE OR TO SEEK AN ADJOURNMENT.CONSIDERING THESE FACTS,WE ARE ADJUDICA TING THE APPEAL ON THE BASIS OF AVAILABLE MATERIAL. 2 .EFFECTIVE GROUND OF APPEAL IS ABOUT ADDITION OF RS .7.40 LAKHS ON ACCOUNT OF BOGUS PURCHASES.DURING THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS THE AO FOUND THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD SHOWN CREDIT BALANCE OF RS.43.81 LAKHS IN THE NAME OF M/S . RAMESHCHANDRA BALCHANDRA(RB) IN ITS BALANCE SHEET.ON VERIFICATION OF DETAILS AND CONFIR MATIONS CALLED FOR FROM THE SAID PARTY IT WAS FOUND THAT IT HAD SHOWN DEBIT BALANCE OF RS.36. 40 LAKHS IN THE NAME OF THE ASSESSEE IN ITS BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS.HE DIRECTED THE ASSESSEE TO RECON CILE THE DIFFERENCE OF RS.7.40 LAKHS AND ALSO ASKED IT TO EXPLAIN AS TO WHY THE DISPUTED AMO UNT SHOULD NOT BE CONSIDERED AS BOGUS PURCHASES.AFTER CONSIDERING THE SUBMISSION OF ASSE SSEE, THE AO HELD THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD CLAIMED THAT GOODS SOLD BY RB IN THE FY.2006-07 WER E RECORDED BY THE SAID PARTY IN THE FY. 2007-08-AFTER A GAP OF MORE THAN 9-12 MONTHS FROM T HE DATE OF THE TRANSACTIONS. AS THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT FURNISHED ANY EXPLANATION, SO, THE AO ADDED AN AMOUNT OF RS.7,40,740/- TO HIS TOTAL INCOME UNDER THE HEAD BOGUS PURCHASES. 3 .AGGRIEVED BY THE ORDER OF THE AO,THE ASSESSEE PREF ERRED AN APPEAL BEFORE THE FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY(FAA).AFTER CONSIDERING THE SUBM ISSION OF THE ASSESSEE AND THE ASSESSMENT ORDER,HE HELD THAT THE BILLS RAISED BY R B ON SALE OF GOODS TO THE ASSESSEE PERTAINED TO THE FY.2007-08, THAT RB HAD RECORDED T HE SAID TRANSACTION IN THE MONTHS OF DECEMBER 2007 AND MARCH 2008 IN ITS BOOKS OF ACCOUN T, THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD RECORDED THE 1339/12AS ARORA 2 SAME TRANSACTION IN THE MONTH OF JANUARY TO MARCH 2 007.HE FURTHER HELD THAT RB HAD CATEGORICALLY CONFIRMED THAT THE GOODS WERE SOLD TO THE ASSESSEE IN THE FY. 2007-08 AND NOT DURING THE FY. 2006-07, THAT THE AO WAS FULLY JUSTI FIED IN CONSIDERING THE SAME AS INFLATED/ BOGUS PURCHASES OF THE ASSESSEE FOR THE RELEVANT AC COUNTING YEAR, THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD NOT DISCLOSED AS TO FROM WHAT SOURCES THE GOODS WERE PU RCHASED, THAT IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY DETAILS REGARDING THE ORIGIN OF THE GOODS ACTUALLY PURCHASED IT HAD TO BE HELD THAT GOODS IN QUESTION WERE PURCHASED OUT OF ITS UNACCOUNTED SOUR CES.FINALLY, HE UPHELD THE ADDITION MADE BY THE AO. 5. THE DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE (DR) SUPPORTED THE ORDER OF THE FAA.AS STATED EARLIER, NONE APPEARED ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE. WE FIND THAT THE AO MADE A DISALLOWANCE OF RS.7.40 LAKHS,THAT THE FAA HAD UPHELD THE ADDITION MADE BY THE AO.NOTHING HAS BEEN PLACED ON RECORD TO PROVE THAT ORDER OF THE FAA SUFFERS FROM ANY INFIRMITY. THEREFORE, WE ARE LEFT WITH NO CHOICE BUT TO CONFIRM THE ORDER OF THE FAA.THE AA HAD NOT PROVED, BY FURNISHING RELIAB LE DOCUMENTS, THAT DISPUTED TRANSACTION HAD TAKEN PLACE DURING THE YEAR UNDER APPEAL. THERE FORE, CONFIRMING THE ORDER OF THE FAA WE DECIDE THE EFFECTIVE GROUND OF APPEAL AGAINST THE A SSESSEE. AS A RESULT, APPEAL FI LED BY THE ASSESSEE STANDS DISMISSED. . ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 2 ND MARCH ,2016. 2 , 2016 SD/- SD/- ( / AMIT SHUKLA) ( / RAJENDRA) / JUDICIAL MEMBER / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER MUMBAI; DATED : 02 .03.2016. JV.SR.PS. / COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. APPELLANT / 2. RESPONDENT / 3. THE CONCERNED CIT(A)/ , 4. THE CONCERNED CIT / 5. DR A BENCH, ITAT, MUMBAI / , , . . . 6. GUARD FILE/ //TRUE COPY// / BY ORDER, / DY./ASST. REGISTRAR , /ITAT, MUMBAI.