Pushpa Saluja, Delhi V. ITO,ward-45(4), New Delhi

ITA 1491/DEL/2022

AI Insights

The case involves Pushpa Saluja, the appellant, who appealed against the order of the CIT(A)-15, New Delhi, which confirmed the addition of Rs. 55,54,382 as bogus purchases for the Assessment Year 2014-15. The AO had initially made this addition after finding discrepancies in the documents and addresses of the parties involved in the transactions. The Tribunal considered the arguments and evidence presented by both the assessee and the revenue, including the failure to provide necessary confirmations from the parties involved and the adverse statement from one of the proprietors, Ritesh Kukreja of Dawar Exclusive, who denied any transactions with the assessee.

• Counselvise Citation: [2023] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 129176 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 2 month(s) 25 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 20-09-2023
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: F
• Next Hearing Date: 18-09-2023
• Assessment Year: 2014-2015
• Appeal Filed On: 26-06-2022
• Other Referred Cases: Nikunj Eximp Enterprises Pvt. Ltd. 372 ITR 619, Simit P. Sheth 356 ITR 451
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Assessee Lawyers: KANISHK RANA
• Keywords: Bogus purchase
• Section: 131

Judgement Text

ITA No.- 1491/Del/2022 Pushpa Saluja Page 1 of 6 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL (DELHI BENCH: ‘F’: NEW DELHI) BEFORE SHRI N.K. BILLAIYA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND MS. ASTHA CHANDRA, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA No:- 1491/Del/2022 ( Assessment Year: 2014-15) Pushpa Saluja, New Delhi. Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 45(4), New Delhi. PAN No: ALOPP4728R APPELLANT RESPONDENT Assessee by : Shri Kanishk Rana, Adv. Revenue by : Shri Vivek Vardhan, Sr. DR Date of Hearing : 19.09.2023 Date of Pronouncement : 21 .09.2023 ORDER PER N.K. BILLAIYA, AM This appeal by the assessee is preferred against the order of the CIT(A)-15, New Delhi, dated 23.09.2019 pertaining to AY 2014-15. 2. The sum and substance of the grievance of the assessee is that the CIT(A) erred in confirming the addition of Rs. 55,54,382/- made by the AO treating the same as bogus purchases. ITA No.- 1491/Del/2022 Pushpa Saluja Page 2 of 6 3. Representatives of both the sides were heard at length. The case records carefully perused and the relevant documentary evidences brought on record duly considered in the light of Rule 18(6) of the ITAT Rules. 4. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the assessee filed her return of income electronically on 03.11.2014 declaring income of Rs. 15,75,420/-. The return was selected for scrutiny assessment and accordingly statutory notices were issues and served upon the assessee. 5. During the course of scrutiny assessment proceedings, the AO noticed that the assessee has shown liability of Rs. 91,90,873/- on account of sundry creditors. The assessee was asked to submit the confirmation of sundry creditors. On perusal of the documents, filed by the assessee, the AO made the following observations in respect of following four parties: (a) M/s Ambey Fabric The address on Income Tax Return for AY 2014-15 of Shri Mahender Pratap Singh, Prop. M/s Ambey Fabric was 1/4816, Nehru Nagar, Shahdara, Delhi - 110032 and was filed manually on 28.07.2014 with ITO, Ward 42(2). Delhi through ASK Centre acknowledgement no. 712328714198785, however, the PAN of Shri Mahender Pratap Singh was with ITO- Ward 3(3)(5), Saharanpur (UP) and the PAN generation date as per CBN PAN based query was 14.08.2015. The address provided by the AR of the assessee was 4852, Nehru Nagar, Khalasi Line, Saharanpur (UP). Further, on perusal of the Return of Income and the computation of Income and bills submitted by the AR of the assessee, it was noticed that these documents had been prepared deliberately, to accommodate M/s Om India Inc., the Proprietorship concern of the assessee only. (b) M/s Unique Creations The address on Income Tax Return for AY 2014-15 of Smt. Sarita Singh, Prop. M's Unique Creations was 1/4816 Nehru Nagar, Shahdara, Delhi - 110032 and was filed manually on 28 07 2014 with ITO. Ward 42(2), Delhi ITA No.- 1491/Del/2022 Pushpa Saluja Page 3 of 6 through ASK Centre acknowledgement no 712328714198777, however, the PAN of Smt Sarita Singh was with ITO-Ward 3(3)(5). Saharanpur (UP) and the PAN generation date as per CBN PAN based query was 14.08.2015. The address provided by the AR of the assessee was 4852, Nehru Nagar, Khalasi Line, Saharanpur (UP). Further, on perusal of the Return of Income and the computation of Income and bills submitted by the AR of the assessee, it was noticed that these documents had been prepared deliberately, to accommodate M/s Om India Inc., the Proprietorship concern of the assessee only. (c) M/s Meenu Fashion The address on Income Tax Return for A.Y 2014-15 of Smt. Sheena Kakkar, Prop. M/s Meenu Fashion was 140A, Rajouri Garden, Delhi - 110027 and was filed manually on 30.03.2015 with ITO. Ward 57(3). Delhi through ASK Centre acknowledgement no 09030031509400322, however, the PAN of Smt. Sarita Singh was with ITO- Ward 3(3)(5). Saharanpur (UP) and the PAN generation date as per CBN PAN based query was 04.07.2015. The address provided by the AR of the assessee was 4853, Nehru Nagar, Khalasi Line, Saharanpur (UP). Further, on perusal of the Return of Income and the computation of Income and bills submitted by the AR of the assessee, it was noticed that these documents had been prepared deliberately, to accommodate M/s Om India Inc., the Proprietorship concern of the assessee only. (d) M/s Dawar Exclusive On perusal of the Return of Income and the computation of Income and bills submitted by the AR of the assessee, it was noticed that these documents had been prepared deliberately, to accommodate M/s Om India Inc., the Proprietorship concern of the assessee only.” 6. Moving ahead with his probe, the AO issued summons U/s 131 of the Act to the aforementioned four parties. Summons in respect of three parties were returned un- served with the remarks “No such person/ No such address/ Incomplete address”. However, in respect of Dawar Exclusive, Prop. Ritesh Kukreja appeared whose statement was recorded on oath and in his statement, he categorically stated that he has done no transaction with the assessee. Taking a leaf out of the adverse statement of Ritesh Kukreja, The AO once again asked the assessee to prove the genuineness of the ITA No.- 1491/Del/2022 Pushpa Saluja Page 4 of 6 purchases made from other three parties. On receiving no plausible reply, the AO made addition of Rs. 55,54,382/- as bogus purchases. The assessee carried the assessment before the CIT(A) but without any success. 7. Before us, the Counsel for the assessee vehemently stated that the assessee has furnished all the necessary details to justify the genuineness of the purchases. It is the say of the Counsel that no defect has been pointed out in the books of account of the assessee which have been duly audited by a Chartered Accountant. The Counsel further stated that the impugned sales have been accepted as such. In support of his contention; reliance was placed on the decision of Hon’ble High Court of Bombay in the case of Nikunj Eximp Enterprises Pvt. Ltd. 372 ITR 619, Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in the case of Simit P. Sheth 356 ITR 451. 8. Per contra, the DR strongly supported the findings of the AO and read the operative part of the assessment order. 9. We have given a thoughtful consideration to the orders of the authorities below. There is no dispute that specific requests were made by the AO, during the course of the scrutiny assessment proceedings to furnish confirmations from the impugned parties but no confirmation was filed by the assessee nor any such confirmation is filed before us, though, the assessee has filed a Paper Book containing 87 pages. Even the copy of ledger account has not been filed in the case of Dawar Exclusive. It is also an undisputed fact that the Prop. of Dawar Exclusive has categorically denied of having done any transaction with the assessee. There is a gross mismatch between the ITR ITA No.- 1491/Del/2022 Pushpa Saluja Page 5 of 6 details filed by the assessee in respect of impugned parties as pointed out by the AO mentioned elsewhere. 10. We don’t know the facts of the cases relied upon by the Counsel; therefore, we cannot draw any support from them. However, we are well aware with the facts of the case in hand and the facts as discussed hereinabove, go on to show that the assessee has miserably failed to establish the genuineness of the purchases. Since, the purchases have been treated as bogus it would be a futile exercises to make addition again in respect of the corresponding sales. Considering the facts of the case from all possible angles, we are inclined to confirm the assessment. 11. In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed. Order pronounced in the open court on 21 .09.2023. Sd/- Sd/- (ASTHA CHANDRA) (N.K. BILLAIYA) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Dated: 21 /09/2023. Pooja/- Copy forwarded to: 1. Appellant 2. Respondent 3. CIT 4. CIT(Appeals) 5. DR: ITAT ASSISTANT REGISTRAR ITAT NEW DELHI ITA No.- 1491/Del/2022 Pushpa Saluja Page 6 of 6 Date of dictation 19/9/23 Date on which the typed draft is placed before the dictating Member 20.9.23 Date on which the typed draft is placed before the Other Member Date on which the approved draft comes to the Sr. PS/PS Date on which the fair order is placed before the Dictating Member for pronouncement Date on which the fair order comes back to the Sr. PS/PS Date on which the final order is uploaded on the website of ITAT Date on which the file goes to the Bench Clerk Date on which the file goes to the Head Clerk The date on which the file goes to the Assistant Registrar for signature on the order Date of dispatch of the Order