VINOD R. SANGHAVI, MUMBAI V. ITO 19(2)(2), MUMBAI

ITA 1390/MUM/2014

• Counselvise Citation: [2015] 134 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 2415 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 8 month(s) 26 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 24-11-2015
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: F
• Next Hearing Date: 24-11-2015
• Assessment Year: 2008-2009
• Appeal Filed On: 28-02-2014
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: DR SANTOSH MANKOSKAR
• Keywords: Bogus purchase
• Section: 133(6)

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, MUMBAI BENCH F, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI SANJAY GARG, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI ASHWANI TANEJA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO.1390/M/2014 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2008-09 SHRI VINOD R. SANGHAVI, SHOP NO.8, VASANT KUNJ, 12 TH ROAD, SANTACRUZ EAST, MUMBAI 400 055 PAN: BDCPS2960K VS. ITO 19(2)(2), R.NO.309, 3 RD FLOOR, PIRAMAL CHAMBERS, LALBAUG, PAREL, MUMBAI 400 012 (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) PRESENT FOR: ASSESSEE BY : NONE REVENUE BY : DR. SANTOSH MANKOSKAR, D.R. DATE OF HEARING : 24.11.2015 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 24.11.2015 O R D E R PER SANJAY GARG, JUDICIAL MEMBER: THE PRESENT APPEAL HAS BEEN PREFERRED BY THE ASSES SEE AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 13.11.2013 OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) [HEREINAFTER REFERRED TO AS THE CIT(A)] RELEVANT TO ASSESSMENT Y EAR 2008-09. 2. NONE HAS COME PRESENT ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE. EARLIER THE CASE WAS FIXED FOR 18.08.15. BUT NO ONE APPEARED ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE DESPITE NOTICE, AND THE CASE WAS ADJOURNED FOR 24.11.15. T HE NOTICE FOR TODAYS HEARING WAS ALSO ISSUED TO THE ASSESSEE BY RPAD ON 13.10.15. BUT TODAY AGAIN NONE HAS COME PRESENT ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE. I T SEEMS THAT THE ASSESSEE IS NO MORE INTERESTED IN PROSECUTING HIS APPEAL. WE, THEREFORE, PROCEED TO DECIDE THE APPEAL ON MERITS AFTER HEARING THE LD. D.R. ITA NO.1390/M/2014 SHRI VINOD R. SANGHAVI 2 3. THE ASSESSEE, IN THIS APPEAL, HAS AGITATED THE C ONFIRMATION OF ADDITION OF RS.20,75,270/- IN RESPECT OF PURCHASES MADE BY THE ASSESSEE FROM DIFFERENT PARTIES. THE ASSESSEE IS ENGAGED IN THE BUSINESS O F SCRAP TRADING. THE TOTAL PURCHASES DURING THE YEAR WERE SHOWN AT RS. 123,82, 505/-. OUT OF THESE PURCHASES, THE PURCHASES SUBJECTED TO TCS WERE OF R S.88,53,094/-. THE ASSESSING OFFICER (HEREINAFTER REFERRED TO AS THE A O) OBSERVED THAT SINCE THE ASSESSEE WAS DEALING IN SCRAP, THEREFORE, TOTAL PUR CHASES SHOULD HAVE BEEN SUBJECTED TO TCS, BUT IN THE PRESENT CASE ON THE RE MAINING PURCHASES I.E. RS.35,29,411/- THERE WAS NO TCS MADE. ACCORDINGLY, THE ASSESSEE WAS ASKED TO EXPLAIN THE SAME. IN RESPONSE TO THIS, THE AR OF THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED ITS REPLY ALONG WITH CONFIRMATIONS. TO VERIFY THE GENUI NENESS OF THE PURCHASES, THE AO ISSUED NOTICES U/S 133(6) TO FIVE PARTIES AS MEN TIONED AT PAGE 2 OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER. IN CASE OF TWO PARTIES, NO REPLY WAS RECEIVED AND IN ONE CASE NOTICE WAS RECEIVED BACK UNSERVED. THE AO POINTED O UT THIS DISCREPANCY TO THE ASSESSEE BUT NO REPLY WAS FILED. ACCORDINGLY, THE A O TOOK THE PURCHASES WHICH WERE CONFIRMED AMOUNTING TO RS.88,53,809/- I.E. TCS PURCHASE AND CONFIRMATIONS RECEIVED IN CASE OF SCHIN IMPEX OF RS .9,60,586/- AND PRABHAT METAL INDUSTRIES OF RS.82,374/-, THUS, THE TOTAL PU RCHASES WERE CONFIRMED AT RS.98,96,769/-. ACCORDINGLY, THE AO ASKED THE ASSES SEE TO EXPLAIN THE BALANCE PURCHASES OF RS.24,85,736/-, BUT NO DOCUMENTARY EVI DENCE TO PROVE THE GENUINENESS OF THE PURCHASES WAS SUBMITTED, THEREFO RE, THE AO TREATED THIS AMOUNT OF RS.24,85,736/- AS BOGUS PURCHASES AND ADD ED BACK TO THE TAXABLE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE. BEING AGGRIEVED BY THE ORD ER OF THE AO, THE ASSESSEE WENT IN APPEAL BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A). 4. BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A), THE ASSESSEE FILED FURTHE R DETAILS RELATING TO THE PURCHASES ABOUT WHICH THE LD. CIT(A) CALLED REMAND REPORT FROM THE AO. THE AO MADE FURTHER ENQUIRIES AND INVESTIGATIONS AND SU BMITTED HIS REMAND REPORT ITA NO.1390/M/2014 SHRI VINOD R. SANGHAVI 3 IN WHICH THE AO STATED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD FAILED TO PRODUCE THE PARTY STANPACK PHARMA PVT. LTD. AND HENCE THE ADDITION OF RS.9,85,545/- IN RESPECT OF THE PURCHASES FROM THE SAID PARTY BE CONFIRMED. THE AO SIMILARLY REPORTED THAT THE ASSESSEE COULD NOT PRODUCE ANY EVIDENCE RE LATING TO THE PARTY PLASTO PACK AND RECOMMENDED THE CONFIRMATION OF ADDITION OF RS.7,14,932/- IN THIS RESPECT. SO FAR AS THE ADDITION OF RS.4,09,658/- W AS CONCERNED, THE AO NOTED THAT THE INFORMATION WAS RECEIVED FROM THE SAID PAR TY WHICH TALLIED WITH THE PURCHASES SHOWN BY THE ASSESSEE, HENCE THE ABOVE AD DITION BE DELETED. IN RESPECT OF THE OTHER PARTY, GLAMOUR TIN INDUSTRIES LTD., THE AO NOTED THAT THERE WAS A DIFFERENCE OF RS.3,13,797/-. HENCE, AD DITION BE RESTRICTED TO RS.3,13,797/- OUT OF THE ADDITION OF RS.3,21,018/-. THE AO FURTHER REPORTED THAT NO REPLY WAS RECEIVED FROM THE PARTY CANARA P ACKAGING AND HENCE RECOMMENDED FOR THE CONFIRMATION OF ADDITION IN RES PECT TO THE SAID PARTY. THE LD. CIT(A) AFTER, GOING THROUGH THE REMAND REPORT O F THE AO, HELD THAT THE ASSESSEE COULD PRODUCE EVIDENCE IN RELATION TO ONE PARTY I.E. HBR PACKAGING ONLY AND FURTHER THAT IN RESPECT OF THE OTHER PARTY GLAMOUR TIN INDUSTRIES LTD. THE ASSESSEE COULD NOT EXPLAIN THE DIFFERENCE OF RS .3,13,797/-. THE ASSESSEE ALSO COULD NOT PRODUCE ANY EVIDENCE IN RESPECT OF T HE PURCHASE MADE FROM THE OTHER THREE PARTIES. THE LD. CIT(A), THEREFORE, AL LOWED THE RELIEF TO THE ASSESSEE OF RS.4,09,658/- IN RESPECT OF HBR PACKAGI NG AND OF RS.7,221/- IN CASE OF GLAMOUR TIN INDUSTRIES LTD. AND CONFIRMED T HE BALANCE ADDITION MADE BY THE AO. 5. BEFORE US NEITHER ANYONE HAS APPEARED ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE NOR ANY SUBMISSIONS HAVE BEEN TENDERED. THE LD. CIT(A) AFT ER CALLING THE REMAND REPORT FROM THE AO HAS CONFIRMED THE DISALLOWANCE I N RESPECT OF PURCHASES ABOUT WHICH NEITHER THE ASSESSEE HAS SUBMITTED ANY EVIDENCE NOR THE CONCERNED ITA NO.1390/M/2014 SHRI VINOD R. SANGHAVI 4 PARTIES HAVE CONFIRMED THE SAME. IN VIEW OF THE AB OVE, WE DO NOT FIND ANY INFIRMITY IN THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A) AND THE SA ME IS THEREFORE UPHELD. 6. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS HER EBY DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 24.11.2015. SD/- SD/- (ASHWANI TANEJA) (SANJAY GARG) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER MUMBAI, DATED: 27.11.2015 * KISHORE, SR. P.S. COPY TO: THE APPELLANT THE RESPONDENT THE CIT, CONCERNED, MUMBAI THE CIT (A) CONCERNED, MUMBAI THE DR CONCERNED BENCH //TRUE COPY// [ BY ORD ER DY/ASSTT. REGISTRAR, ITAT, MUMBAI.