A.R. RAIL VIKAS SERVICES P.LTD, MUMBAI V. DCIT RG 9(1)(2), MUMBAI

ITA 1977/MUM/2016

• Counselvise Citation: [2017] 127 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 0346 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 4 month(s) 18 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 16-08-2017
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: Not Allotted
• Assessment Year: 2009-2010
• Appeal Filed On: 29-03-2016
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: SUMAN KUMAR LD
• Keywords: Bogus purchase; Onus to prove; Reassessment proceedings
• Section: 143(3); 133(6); 147; 148

Judgement Text

ITA NO 1977/MUM/2016 A.R.RAIL VIKAS SERVICES PRIVATE LIMITED ASSESSMENT YEAR 2009-10 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL B BENCH, MUMBAI . . , , BEFORE SHRI D.T. GARASIA, JM AND SHRI MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL, AM ./I.T.A. NO.1977/MUM/2016 ( / ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2009-10) A.R.RAIL VIKAS SERVICES PVT.LTD 311/331 A.R.HOUSE RSC/48 NEAR PRAGATI COLLEGE GORAI,BORIVALI(W) MUMBAI 400 091 / VS. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX RANGE 9(1)(2) MUMBAI ! ./ ./PAN/GIR NO. AAFCA-1714-P ( !# /APPELLANT ) : ( $%!# / RESPONDENT ) ASSESSEE BY : NONE REVENUE BY : SUMAN KUMAR, LD. DR / DATE OF HEARING : 10/08/2017 / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 16/08/2017 ITA NO 1977/MUM/2016 A.R.RAIL VIKAS SERVICES PRIVATE LIMITED ASSESSMENT YEAR 2009-10 2 / O R D E R PER MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) 1. THE CAPTIONED APPEAL BY ASSESSEE FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR [AY] 2009-10 ASSAILS THE ORDER OF LD. COMMISSIONER OF IN COME TAX (APPEALS)-16 [CIT(A)], MUMBAI DATED 28/01/2016 QUA CONFIRMATION OF CERTAIN ADDITIONS ON ACCOUNT OF BOGUS PURCHASES. NONE HAS APPEARED FOR ASSESSEE AND NO ADJOURNMENT PETITION IS ON RECO RD AND HENCE, LEFT WITH NO OPTION, WE PROCEED TO DECIDE THE APPEAL AFT ER HEARING LD. DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE AND ON THE BASIS OF MAT ERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. 2. BRIEFLY STATED, THE ASSESSEE BEING RESIDENT CORPORATE ASSESSEE HAS BEEN SUBJECTED TO AN ASSESSMENT U/S 143(3) READ WITH SECTION 147 FOR IMPUGNED AY ON 10/02/2015 WHEREIN THE TOTAL INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE WAS DETERMINED AT RS.1,11,94,350/- AS AGAINST RETUR NED INCOME OF RS.1,06,77,330/- E-FILED BY THE ASSESSEE ON 29/09/2009. THE ORIGINAL RETURN AS WAS PROCESSED U/S 143(1). ACCORDINGLY, ST ATUTORY NOTICES U/S 148 WAS ISSUED TO THE ASSESSEE ON 26/03/2014 WHICH WAS FOLLOWED BY NOTICE U/S 143(2). THE ASSESSEE HAS SUFFERED SOLE A DDITION OF RS.5,17,026/- ON ACCOUNT OF CERTAIN BOGUS PURCHASES AND THE SAME IS THE SUBJECT MATTER OF THIS APPEAL. 3. THE REASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS WERE INITIATED PURS UANT TO RECEIPT OF CERTAIN INFORMATION FROM SALES TAX DEPARTMENT, MAHARASHTRA REGARDING DEALERS INDULGING IN ISSUANCE OF BOGUS PURCHASE BILLS. IT WAS NOTED THAT THE ASSESSEE MADE PURCHASES OF RS.5,17,026/- FROM A CONCERN NAMELY ITA NO 1977/MUM/2016 A.R.RAIL VIKAS SERVICES PRIVATE LIMITED ASSESSMENT YEAR 2009-10 3 TRIMURTI ENTERPRISES WHO WAS LISTED AS SUSPICIOUS DEALERS. THE NOTICE ISSUED TO THE SAID CONCERN U/S 133(6) WAS RETURNED BACK UN-SERVED WHICH WAS CONFRONTED TO THE ASSESSEE. THE REPRESENT ATIVE OF THE ASSESSEE, WHILE CONTENDING THAT THE PURCHASES WERE GENUINE, AGREED FOR THE IMPUGNED ADDITION TO AVOID LITIGATION AND DUE T O SMALLNESS OF THE AMOUNT AND ACCORDINGLY, LD. AO, TREATING THE SAME A S BOGUS PURCHASES, ADDED THE SAME TO THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE. HOWEV ER, LATER ON, THE ASSESSEE CONTESTED THE SAME WITHOUT ANY SUCCESS BEF ORE LD. CIT(A) VIDE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 28/01/2016 WHERE THE ASSE SSEE PRODUCED LEDGER EXTRACT, COPY OF INVOICES, BANK STATEMENTS E TC. AND CONTENDED THAT THE PAYMENT WERE THROUGH BANKING CHANNELS AND HENCE THE PURCHASES WERE GENUINE. HOWEVER, LD. CIT(A) NOTED T HAT THE ASSESSEE COULD NOT PRODUCE THE ALLEGED BOGUS SUPPLIER AND ALSO COULD NOT PRODUCE EVIDENCES REGARDING TRANSPORTATION AND CONSUMPTION OF MATERIAL. FINALLY, PLACING RELIANCE ON MANY JUDICIAL PRONOUNCEMENTS, T HE ADDITION WAS CONFIRMED IN THE FOLLOWING MANNER:- 4.2.33. AS DISCUSSED IN THE FOREGOING PARAGRAPHS, FROM PERUSAL OF PARA 5 OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER, IT IS EVIDENT THAT THE APP ELLANT DID NOT PRODUCE SUFFICIENT EVIDENCES PROVING THE GENUINENESS OF PUR CHASES BEFORE THE AO AND OFFERED IT FOR TAXATION. EVEN DURING THE APPELLATE STAGE, ONE MORE OPPORTUNITY WAS ACCORDED VIDE ORDER SHEET NOTING DATED 27.1.201 6 ASKING THE APPELLANT TO PRODUCE PARTY, FOR VERIFICATION OF ITS CLAIM. TH E APPELLANT VIDE ORDER SHEET NOTING DATED 28.1.2016, ADMITTED THAT HE WAS NOT IN A POSITION TO PRODUCE THE PARTY FOR VERIFICATION OF ITS CLAIM. NECESSARY EVID ENCES IN SUPPORT OF TRANSPORTATION AND CONSUMPTION OF GOODS WERE ALSO N OT PRODUCED. SINCE, APPELLANT ITSELF OFFERED THE ALLEGED BOGUS PURCHASE FOR TAXATION BEFORE AO, IT CAN NOT SUBSTANTIATE ITS CLAIM EVEN DURING APPELLAT E PROCEEDINGS, THEREFORE, APPEAL IS DISMISSED ON THIS GROUND. AGGRIEVED, THE ASSESSEE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE US. ITA NO 1977/MUM/2016 A.R.RAIL VIKAS SERVICES PRIVATE LIMITED ASSESSMENT YEAR 2009-10 4 4. THE LD. DR PLACED RELIANCE ON THE FINDINGS OF LO WER AUTHORITIES AND CONTENDED THAT MERE PAYMENTS THROUGH BANKING CHANNE LS WAS NOT SUFFICIENT TO PROVE THE TRANSACTIONS PARTICULARLY W HEN THE ASSESSEE COULD NOT SHOW EVIDENCE AS TO ACTUAL DELIVERY OF MATERIAL AND CONSUMPTION THEREOF. 5. UPON HEARING THE CONTENTIONS AND PERUSING THE MA TERIAL ON RECORD, WE SEE NO REASON TO DISTURB THE FINDING OF THE LD. CIT(A) FOR THE REASON THAT THE ONUS TO PROVE THE ACTUAL DELIVERY OF MATER IAL AND CONSUMPTION THEREOF SQUARELY LIED ON THE ASSESSEE, WHICH HE HAS MISERABLY FAILED TO PROVE. THE ASSESSEE WAS PROVIDED WITH SEVERAL OPPOR TUNITIES TO SUBSTANTIATE THE PURCHASES BUT COULD NOT DO SO. THE RE IS NO MATERIAL BEFORE US WHICH SHOWS DELIVERY OF MATERIAL AND CONS UMPTION THEREOF IN THE WORK CARRIED OUT BY THE ASSESSEE. HENCE, WE CON CUR WITH THE STAND OF LD. CIT(A). 6. RESULTANTLY, THE ASSESSEES APPEAL STANDS DISMIS SED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 16 TH AUGUST, 2017. SD/- SD/- (D.T. GARASIA) (MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL) / JUDICIAL MEMBER / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER MUMBAI; DATED : 16. 08.2017 SR.PS:- THIRUMALESH ITA NO 1977/MUM/2016 A.R.RAIL VIKAS SERVICES PRIVATE LIMITED ASSESSMENT YEAR 2009-10 5 ! / COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. !# / THE APPELLANT 2. $%!# / THE RESPONDENT 3. , ( ) / THE CIT(A) 4. , / CIT CONCERNED 5. $'. , . , / DR, ITAT, MUMBAI 6. / / GUARD FILE / BY ORDER, / (DY./ASSTT. REGISTRAR) , / ITAT, MUMBAI