Mukeshkumar Pukhraj Mehta, Pune V. Income-tax Officer,

ITA 2026/PUN/2014

• Counselvise Citation: [2015] 134 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 0916 (ITAT-PUNE)
• Duration Of Justice: 11 month(s) 19 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 03-11-2015
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Assessment Year: 2010-2011
• Appeal Filed On: 14-11-2014
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: DHEERAJ KUMAR JAIN
• Keywords: Bogus purchase; Unexplained cash credit; Unexplained expenditure; Accommodation entries; Retraction
• Section: 69C; 143(3); 234B; 68

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE BENCH A, PUNE , . . , BEFORE MS. SUSHMA CHOWLA, JM AND SHRI R.K. PANDA, AM . / ITA NO. 2 026 /PN/201 4 / ASSESSMENT YEAR : 20 1 0 - 11 SHRI MUKESHKUMAR PUKHRAJ MEHTA, PROP. OF ARIHANT TUBES FITTINGS, GALA NO.10 - B/11 - B, GALA NO.10 - B/11 - B, GOYAL INDUSTRIAL CO. SOCIETY, J - 5 - 14 MIDC, BHOSARI, PUNE 411026 . / APPELLANT PAN: A FQ PM9918J VS. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER , WARD 8(3) , PUNE . / RESPONDENT / APPELLANT BY : SHRI M.K. KULKARNI / RESPOND ENT BY : SHRI DHEERAJ KUMAR JAIN / DATE OF HEARING : 0 4 .0 8 .20 15 / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT: 03 . 11 .2015 / ORDER / ORDER PER SUSHMA CHOWLA, J M : TH IS APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS AGAINST THE ORDER OF CIT (A) - V, PUNE DATED 18 . 09 .20 1 4 RELATING TO ASSESSMENT YEAR 20 1 0 - 11 AGAINST ORDER PASSED UNDER SECT ION 143(3) OF THE INCOME - TAX ACT , 1961 (IN SHORT THE ACT) . 2. THE ASSESSEE HAS RAISED THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS OF APPEAL: - 2. THE ASSESSEE HAS RAISED THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS OF APPEAL: - 1) ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW THE LD.C I T(A) OUGHT TO HAVE APPRECIATED THE LEGAL POSITION BEFORE CONFIRMIN G THE ADDITION OF RS.74,73,020/ - ON ACCOUNT OF SAID SUCH PURCHASES TO BE ITA NO. 2 026 /PN/20 1 4 SHRI MUKESHKUMAR PUKHRAJ MEHTA 2 BOGUS PURCHASES/HAWALA PURCHASES AS BRANDED BY SALES - TAX DEPTT. THEN THE ENTIRE PURCHASES CANNOT ADDED TO INCOME SINCE SUCH PURCHASES HAVE ALREADY ENTERED INTO SALES DISCLOSED WHICH H AVE BEEN ALREADY ACCEPTED. THE ADDITION OF GROSS PURCHASES IS UNWARRANTED AND IT BE DELETED. AND IT BE DELETED. 2) ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW THE LD. C I T(A) WAS NOT JUSTIFIED IN CONFIRMING THE ADDITION OF RS.74,73,020/ - BY NOT ACCEPTING THE SUBMI SSION OF THE ASSESSEE THAT ON THE BASIS OF 'MATCHING PRINCIPLE' AND SINCE THE SALES TURNED OUT FROM SUCH PURCHASES HAVE BEEN ACCEPTED BY THE A.O. NO ADDITION ON ACCOUNT OF GROSS VALUE OF PURCHASES WAS POSSIBLE. THE ADDITION OF RS.74,73,020/ - IS WARRANTED. IT BE DELETED. 3) ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW AND CONSIDERING THE SETTLED POSITION OF LAW THE ASSESSEE WAS NOT OBLIGED TO PRODUCE THE PARTIES BEFORE A.O. THE LD. C I T(A) WAS NOT JUSTIFIED TO CONFIRM THE ACTION MADE BY THE A.O. OF GROSS PURCHASES OF RS.74,73,020/ - THE ADDITION BE DELETED. ADDITION BE DELETED. 4) ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW THE JUDICIAL PRECEDENTS QUOTED BEFORE CIT(A) WERE NOT PROPERLY APPRECIATED BY C I T(A). THE HON'BLE GUJRAT HIGH COURT IN SMITA P. SHETH (20 13) 38 TAXMANN.COM 386 (GUJ), HAD HELD THAT NOT THE ENTIRE PURCHASES BUT ONLY THE PROFIT ELEMENT CAN BE ADDED. THE LD.C I T(A) WAS NOT JUSTIFIED IN NOT ACCEPTING THE RATIO DECIDEND I OF HON'BLE GUJRAT HIGH COURT JUDGMENT AND DECISION OF OTHER JUDICIAL FORUMS. THE ADDITION BE DELETED. 5) ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW THE LD.C I T(A) ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE ADDITION MADE BY A.O. OF RS.15,65,000/ - INVOKING S. 68 OF THE ACT EVEN THOUGH THE CONFIRMATION LETTERS, INCOME - INVOKING S. 68 OF THE ACT EVEN THOUGH THE CONFIRMATION LETTERS, INCOME - TAX DETAILS OF THE CRE DITORS WERE FILED BEFORE A.O. IF AT ALL ADVANCES MADE BY THE PARTIES WERE DOUBTFUL ACCORDING TO A.O. THE ADDITION SHOULD HAVE BEEN MADE IN THE HANDS OF THE SAID CREDITORS. AS FAR AS ASSESSEE IS CONCERNED IN THIS APPEAL THE PROVISIONS OF S. 68 WERE NOT INVO KABLE AS ALL THE INGREDIENTS OF THE PROVISION WERE SATISFIED. THE ADDITION MADE U/S 68 BY A.O. AND CONFIRMED BY LD. C I T(A) BE DELETED. 6) ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW THE LD. CI T(A) WAS NOT JUSTIFIED IN SUSTAINING THE ADDITION OF RS.2,00,000/ - MADE BY THE A.O. ON ACCOUNT OF STOCK VALUATION. THE SUSTENANCE OF ADDITION IS NOT IN CONSONANCE WITH THE PROVISIONS OF LAW. THE ADDITION BE DELETED. 7) ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW THE LEVY OF 7) ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW THE LEVY OF INTEREST U/S 234A, 23 4 B AND 234C IS NOT JUSTIFIED. 8) THE APPELLANT CRAVES/LEAVE TO ADD, AMEND OR ALTER ANY OF THE ABOVE GROUNDS OF APPEAL . 3. THE ISSUE RAISED VIDE GROUND OF APPEAL NOS.1 TO 4 IS AGAINST THE ADDITION MADE ON ACCOUNT OF ALLEGED BOGUS PURCHASES OF RS.74,73,02 0/ - . 4. BRIEFLY, IN THE FACTS OF THE PRESENT CASE, THE ASSESSEE HAD FURNISHED 4. BRIEFLY, IN THE FACTS OF THE PRESENT CASE, THE ASSESSEE HAD FURNISHED RETURN OF INCOME DECLARING TOTAL INCOME OF RS. 15,92,820/ - . THE ASSESSEE WAS ENGAGED IN THE BUSINESS OF TRADING IN HARDWARE AND FITTINGS . THE TOTAL TURNOVER ITA NO. 2 026 /PN/20 1 4 SHRI MUKESHKUMAR PUKHRAJ MEHTA 3 SHOWN BY THE ASSESS EE FOR THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION WAS RS. 1,98,64,239/ - AND THE GROSS PROFIT SHOWN WAS RS.28,95,578/ - , DECLARING GP RATE AT 14.58%. THE ASSESSEE FURTHER DECLARED NET PROFIT OF RS.15,78,096/ - , WHICH WORKED OUT TO 7.94% . IN THE IMMEDIATELY PRECEDING YEAR, THE TOTAL TURNOVER WAS RS.1,99,07,510/ - AND THE GROSS PROFIT WAS SHOWN AT RS.27,46,379/ - DECLARING GP RATE AT 13.80% . DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, THE ASSESSING OFFICER ASKED THE ASSESSEE TO PROVIDE THE DETAILS OF PURCHASES, CREDITORS, DE BTORS , ETC. FROM THE LIST OF PURCHASES, THE ASSESSING OFFICER NOTED THAT SOME OF THE PARTIES WERE APPEARING IN THE LIST OF HAWALA DEALERS PUBLISHED BY THE SALES TAX DEPARTMENT. THE DETAILS OF THE SAID PARTIES FROM WHOM PURCHASES TOTALLING RS.74,73,020/ - WERE MADE IS ENLISTED UNDER PARA 4 AT PAGE 2 OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER. THE ASSESSING OFFICER FURTHER NOTED THAT ALL THE SAID PARTIES WERE STATED TO BE LOCATED IN MUMBAI. THE SALES TAX DEPARTMENT HAD DETECTED THAT ALL THOSE PARTIES WERE MERELY PROVIDING AC COMMODATION ENTRIES AND THAT THOUGH THERE WAS A TIN NUMBER, THEY HAD NOT PAID ANY VAT ENTRIES AND THAT THOUGH THERE WAS A TIN NUMBER, THEY HAD NOT PAID ANY VAT ALLEGED TO HAVE BEEN COLLECTED. FURTHER, THE SAID PARTIES WERE NOT AVAILABLE ON THE GIVEN ADDRESS. ACCORDINGLY, THE SALE TAX DEPARTMENT TREATED THE ABOVE PARTIES ALONG WITH OTHER SUCH ENTITIES AS HAWALA DEALERS. THE ASSESSING OFFICER ASKED THE AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE FOR THE ASSESSEE TO PRODUCE ABOVE PARTIES FOR VERIFICATION ALONG WITH SUPPORTING BILLS AND OTHER RELATED DETAILS, SUCH AS DELIVERY CHALLANS FOR THE GOODS , RECEIPTS FROM OCTROI PAID IN RESPECT OF GOODS ALLEGED TO HAVE BEEN PURCHASED FROM THE ABOVE PARTIES. HOWEVER, THE AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE FOR THE ASSESSEE EXPRESSED HIS IN - ABILITY TO PRODUCE THE PARTIES. THE AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE FOR THE ASSESSEE ALSO STATED THAT HE WAS NOT IN A POSITION TO PRODUCE ANY OCTROI RECEIPTS OR ANY OTHER CORROBORATIVE EVIDENCE IN SUPPORT OF PURCHASES ALLEGED TO HAVE BEEN MADE FROM THE SAID PARTIES. IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY SUPPORTING DETAILS, THE ASSESSING OFFICER WAS OF T HE VIEW THAT PURCHASES FROM THE SAID PARTIES HAVE TO BE TREATED AS BOGUS PURCHASES, ESPECIALLY IN VIEW OF THE FACT THAT THE PARTIES ITA NO. 2 026 /PN/20 1 4 SHRI MUKESHKUMAR PUKHRAJ MEHTA 4 WERE BL A CK LISTED BY THE SALES TAX DEPARTMENT AS HAWALA DEALERS. THE AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE FOR THE ASSESSEE WAS CONFRONT ED WITH THE SAID FACT AND WAS ASKED TO SHOW CAUSE VIDE ORDER SHEET ENTRY DATED 04.03.2013 AS TO WHY THE ALLEGED PURCHASES FROM THE ABOVE PARTIES AMOUNTING TO RS.74,73,020/ - SHOULD NOT BE DISALLOWED AND ADDED TO THE TOTAL INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE. IN RESPONS E TO THE SAID OPPORTUNITY, THE AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE FOR THE ASSESSEE STATED THAT SINCE PARTIES ARE INCLUDED IN THE LIST OF HAWALA DEALERS, THE AMOUNT OF PURCHASES CLAIMED FROM THE ABOVE PARTIES MAY BE ADDED TO THE TOTAL INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE. ACCORD INGLY, THE SAID SUM OF RS.74,73,020/ - WAS DISALLOWED AND ADDED TO THE TOTAL INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE TREATIN G THE SAME AS BOGUS PURCHASES. 5. BEFORE THE CIT(A), THE ASSESSEE RAISED THREE GROUNDS OF APPEAL AGAINST THE AFORESAID ADDITION ON ACCOUNT OF PURCHAS ES FROM THE ALLEGED HAWALA DEALERS. THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE BEFORE THE CIT(A) WAS THAT ONCE THE SALES WERE HELD TO BE GENUINE, THE PURCHASES COULD NOT BE DISALLOWED ON THE BASIS OF MATCHING PRINCIPLES. RELIANCE IN THIS REGARD WAS PLACED ON VARIOUS DECIS IONS. THE ASSESSEE FURTHER SUBMITTED BEFORE THE CIT(A) THAT ONE OF THE SELLING DEALERS M/S. SIDHIVINAYAK ENTERPRISES, MUMBAI WAS NOT FOUND IN THE LIST OF HAWALA DEALERS, AS PER THE WEBSITE OF SALES TAX DEPARTMENT. ACCORDINGLY, AT THE MOST , SUCH PURCHASES COULD BE HELD TO BE UNVERIFIABLE PURCHASES AND IT WAS ALLEGED THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICERS STAND IN DISALLOWING THE ENTIRE PURCHASES AT RS.74,73,020/ - WAS NOT JUSTIFIED. ACCORDINGLY, IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT REASONABLE GP COULD BE ADDED AS PER THE DECISION OF AHMEDABAD BENCH OF TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF VIJAY PRODUCTS REPORTED IN 58 ITD 429 (AHD) . THE CIT(A) NOTED THAT ONUS WAS UPON THE ASSESSEE OF PRODUCING THE PARTI ES, THEIR CONFIRMATIONS, TRANSPORTATION RECEIPTS, WEIGH BRIDGE RECEIPTS, OCTROI RECEIPTS, ETC . TO SUBSTANTIATE HIS CLAIM OF PURCHASES, WHICH HAS NOT BEEN DONE , DESPITE SEVERAL OPPORTUNITIES. THE CIT(A) FURTHER NOTED THAT ON THE CONTRARY, WHEN ITA NO. 2 026 /PN/20 1 4 SHRI MUKESHKUMAR PUKHRAJ MEHTA 5 CONFRONTED ON THE ISSUE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER, AS TO WHY THE AMOUNT OF RS.74,73,020/ - REPRESENTING ALL EGED PURCHASES FROM THE SAID HAWALA DEALERS SHOULD NOT BE TREATED AS BOGUS, THE LEARNED AR OF THE APPELLANT STATED THAT AMOUNT OF PURCHASES CLAIMED FROM THE ABOVE PARTIES MAY BE ADDED TO THE TOTAL INCOME OF THE APPELLANT. THIS POSITION HAS BEEN CLEARLY HI GHLIGHTED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER ON PAGE 3 OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER. THIS FACT CLEARLY SHOWS THAT AT NO POINT OF TIME, THE APPELLANT TOOK THE STAND OF MATCHING PRINCIPLES WHICH IS BASED ON TALLYING OF ENTIRE PURCHASES AND SALES AND ALSO CLOSING STOCK. T HEREFORE, ATTEMPT OF THE APPELLANT TO CLING TO THE CONCEPT OF MATCHING PRINCIPLES IS LIKE TRYING TO BOARD THE BUS EVEN THOUGH THE APPELLANT HAS MISSED THE SAME AT THE LEVEL OF ASSESSING OFFICER. THE CIT(A) FURTHER NOTED THAT EVEN AT THIS STAGE, THE APPELL ANT 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. TO SUPPORT HIS CASE SO THAT REMAND ORDER U/S.250(4) OF INCOME - TAX ACT CAN BE PASSED. CONSEQ UENTLY, THE STAND OF THE U/S.250(4) OF INCOME - TAX ACT CAN BE PASSED. CONSEQ UENTLY, THE STAND OF THE ASSESSEE REGARDING MATCHING CONCEPT WAS FOUND TO BE MIS - PLACED BY THE CIT(A). IN THE ALTERNATE, THE CIT(A) OBSERVED THAT IF IT IS ACCEPTED THAT CORRESPONDING PURCHASES ENTERED INTO BOOKS OF ACCOUNT ARE FROM ALTERNATE SOURCES MADE BY THE ASSESSEE, THE PURCHASES FROM ALTERNATE SOURCES WAS NOTHING, BUT UNEXPLAINED EXPENDITURE WHICH WAS REQUIRED TO BE CONSIDERED FOR ADDITION UNDER SECTION 69C OF THE ACT. RELIANCE IN THIS REGARD WAS PLACED ON THE DECISION S OF HONBLE DELHI HIGH COURT I N CIT VS. LAMEDICA REPORTED IN 250 ITR 575 (DEL) AND THE HONBLE MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT IN SYSTEM INDIA CASTINGS VS. CIT REPORTED IN 229 ITR 181 (MP) . THE HONBLE HIGH COURTS HAD UPHELD THE ADDITION ON ACCOUNT OF ENTIRE BOGUS PURCHASES. THE CIT(A) THU S, HELD THAT THE DISALLOWANCE OF RS.74,73,020/ - WAS TO BE UPHELD AS UNEXPLAINED EXPENDITURE UNDER SECTION 69C OF THE ACT. RELIANCE OF THE ASSESSEE ON THE DECISION OF MUMBAI BENCH OF TRIBUNAL IN M/S. BASSEIN DRUGS LTD. VS. ITO WAS FOUND TO BE MIS - PLACED AS THE FACT S OF THE SAID CASE WERE ON ITA NO. 2 026 /PN/20 1 4 SHRI MUKESHKUMAR PUKHRAJ MEHTA 6 DIFFER ENT FO O TING. IN THE SAID CASE, THE CIT(A) HA D EXAMINED THE COMPLETE DETAILS, DOCUMENTS AND RECORDS AND CAME TO THE CONCLUSION THAT THE MATERIAL REFERRED TO IN THE SO - CALLED ALLEGED PURCHASES HAD BEEN USED IN THE M ANUFACTURING OF DRUGS AND THEREFORE, QUANTITY OF SAID PURCHASES COULD NOT BE DOUBTED. IN THIS CASE, NO SUCH DETAILS WERE FILED TO VERIFY THE QUANTITATIVE ASPECT OF THE PURCHASES. ON THE OTHER HAND, THE LEARNED AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE FOR THE ASSESSEE H IMSELF HAD ADMITTED BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER THAT ENTIRE PURCHASES SHOULD BE ADDED TO THE TOTAL INCOME. PLACING R ELIANCE ON THE RATIO LAID DOWN BY THE HONBLE DELHI HIGH COURT IN CIT VS. LAMEDICA (SUPRA) AND THE HONBLE MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT IN SY STEM INDIA CASTINGS VS. CIT (SUPRA), THE CIT(A) UPHELD THE ADDITION. ANOTHER RELIANCE PLACED UPON BY THE LEARNED AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE FOR THE ASSESSEE WAS ON THE DECISION OF HONBLE BOMBAY HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. NIKUNJ EXIMP ENTERPRISES PV T. LTD. IN ITA NO.5604/2010 , WHEREIN THE CONFIRMATION FROM THE SUPPLIERS, COPIES OF BANK STATEMENTS, STOCK STATEMENTS CONFIRMATION FROM THE SUPPLIERS, COPIES OF BANK STATEMENTS, STOCK STATEMENTS WITH COMPLETE DETAILS OF OPENING STOCK, PURCHASES, SALES AND CLOSING STOCK WERE FILED AND ALSO SUBSTANTIAL AMOUNT OF SALES WERE MADE TO TH E GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENTS. THE ASSESSEE THEREIN WAS NOT ABLE TO PRODUCE PARTIES , BUT HAD PRODUCED CORROBORATIVE EVIDENCE AND ON THIS PREMISE, THE HONBLE BOMBAY HIGH COURT DELETED THE ADDITION. THE FACTS OF THE PRESENT CASE WERE HELD TO BE DIFFERENT AND T HE ADDITION OF RS.74,73,020/ - BEING BOGUS PURCHASES, WAS TREATED AS UNEXPLAINED EXPENDITURE UNDER SECTION 69C OF THE ACT. 6. THE ASSESSEE IS IN APPEAL AGAINST THE ORDER OF CIT(A). 7. THE LEARNED AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE FOR THE ASSESSEE POINTED OUT THAT THE FINDINGS OF CESTAT IN THIS CASE WERE THAT THESE WERE HAWALA DEALERS, WHEREIN THE SELLER HAD COLLECTED THE TAX, BUT HAD NOT PAID TO THE SALES TAX DEPARTMENT. THE VAT TAX WAS COLLECTED FROM THE ASSESSEE AND ONCE THE ASSESSEE HAS PAID VAT, THEN AS PER T HE LEARNED AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE ITA NO. 2 026 /PN/20 1 4 SHRI MUKESHKUMAR PUKHRAJ MEHTA 7 FOR THE ASSESSEE, THE PURCHASES WERE REGULARIZED. THE LEARNED AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE FOR THE ASSESSEE FURTHER POINTED OUT THAT IN CASE THE SAID PURCHASES ARE ADDED IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSEE, THEN THE GP RATE WOUL D BE ABNORMAL I.E. AS AGAINST 14.50% , THE SAME WOULD BE ASSESSED AT 52%. IT WAS STRESSED BY THE LEARNED AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE FOR THE ASSESSEE T HAT WHERE SALES ARE NOT DOUBTED, PURCHASES CANNOT BE ADDED. THE LEARNED AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE FOR THE ASSESSEE REFERRED TO THE DETAILS FURNISHED IN PAPER BOOK II, WHEREIN THE PURCHASES AND SALES HAVE BEEN MATCHED. RELIANCE WAS PLACED ON SERIES OF DECISIONS AND IN CONCLUSION, THE LEARNED AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE FOR THE ASSESSEE STATED THAT ONLY PERCENT AGE IN PURCHASES COULD BE ADDED IN THE HANDS OF ASSESSEE AND NOT THE ENTIRE PURCHASES. THE LEARNED AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE FOR THE ASSESSEE RELIED ON THE FOLLOWING DECISIONS: - 1. CIT VS. SUNRISE TOOLING SYSTEMS PVT. LTD. (2014) 361 ITR 206 (DELHI) 2. ELAND INTERNATIONAL (P) LTD. VS. DCIT (2009) 124 TTJ 554 3. CIT VS. M.K. BROTHERS (1987) 163 ITR 249 (GUJ) 4. CIT VS. BHOLANATH POLY FAB PVT. LTD. (2013) 355 ITR 290 (GUJ) 5. GANPATLAL A. SANGHAVI VS. ACIT, ITA NO.2826/MUM/2013 8. THE LEARNED DEPARTME NTAL REPRESENTATIVE FOR THE REVENUE IN REPLY, POINTED OUT THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAD TIME AND AGAIN ASKED THE ASSESSEE TO ESTABLISH THE GENUINENESS OF THE PURCHASES, BUT NOTHING WAS PRODUCED BY THE LEARNED AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE FOR THE ASSESSEE AND HE ADMITTED THAT THE S AME MAY BE ADDED IN THE HANDS OF ASSESSEE. THE CONTENTION OF THE ASSESSEE THAT THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT WERE NOT REJECTED, AS PER THE LEARNED DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE FOR THE REVENUE, THE ASSESSEE HAS FAILED TO ESTABLISH THE GENUINEN ESS OF THE PURCHASES. THERE IS NO MODE O F TRANSPORTATION ESTABLISHED BY THE ASSESSEE, NO BILLS OF OCTROI PAID SINCE THE GOODS TRAVELLED FROM MUMBAI TO PUNE AND NO EVIDENCE OF ARRIVAL OF GOODS. IT WAS STRESSED BY THE LEARNED DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE FO R THE REVENUE ITA NO. 2 026 /PN/20 1 4 SHRI MUKESHKUMAR PUKHRAJ MEHTA 8 THAT ONCE THE ASSESSEE ADMITTED TO THE ADDITION, THE ASSESSING OFFICER WAS PREVENTED FROM MAKING ANY FURTHER ENQUIRIES AND HENCE, NO MERIT IN THE PLEA OF THE ASSESSEE. IN RELATION TO THE DECISION OF HONBLE BOMBAY HIGH COURT IN CIT VS. NIKUN J EXIMP ENTERPRISES PVT. LTD. (SUPRA) , IT WAS POINTED OUT BY HIM THAT IN THE SAID CASE, THE ASSESSEE THEREIN HAD FILED THE CONFIRMATION FROM THE SUPPLIERS INCLUDING THE STOCK TALLY AND PAYMENT WAS MADE THROUGH CHEQUE AND WHERE ONLY SELLERS COULD NOT BE PRO DUCED, THE HONBLE HIGH COURT DELETED THE ADDITION. HOWEVER, IN THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE, THE FACTS ARE DISTINGUISHABLE AND THERE IS NO EVIDENCE OF THE EXISTENCE OF PARTIES ITSELF. 9. THE LEARNED AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE FOR THE ASSESSEE IN TURN, STATED THAT HE WAS RELYING ON THE DECISION OF HONBLE BOMBAY HIGH COURT IN CIT VS. NIKUNJ EXIMP ENTERPRISES PVT. LTD. (SUPRA) AND ALSO POINTED OUT THAT THE PURCHASES WERE MADE THROUGH CHEQUE. 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 TURNOVER 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 TRADIN G 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 HA D MADE THE PURCHASES WERE NAMED IN THE LIST OF HAWALA DEALERS PUBLISHED BY THE SALES TAX DEPARTMENT. THE TO TAL PURCHASES FROM THE SAID PARTIES WORKED OUT TO RS. 74,73,020/ - AS PER THE LIST AT PAGE 2 OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER. ALL THE ABOVE SAID PARTIES FROM WHOM PURCHASES WERE MADE WERE LOCATED IN MUMBAI I.E. OUTSIDE THE AREA OF OPERATION OF THE ASSESSEE IN BHOSA RI, 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 RE SPECTIVE PERSONS TO WHOM ITA NO. 2 026 /PN/20 1 4 SHRI MUKESHKUMAR PUKHRAJ MEHTA 9 SALES HAD BEEN MADE. THE ASSESSEE WAS ONE SUCH PERSON TO WHOM THE SALES WERE MADE BY THE SAID PARTIES 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 TH E SAID PARTIES FOR VERIFICATION. IN ADDITION, THE ASSESSING OFFICER ALSO REQUISITIONED THE ASSESSEE TO PRODUCE THE SUPPORTING BILLS ALONG WITH RELATED DETAILS I.E. DELIVERY CHALLANS FOR THE GOODS, RECEIPTS FROM OCTROI PAID IN RESPECT OF GOODS ALLEGED TO H AVE 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 PU RCHASES ALLEGED TO HAVE BEEN MADE FROM THE SAID PARTIES. IN VIEW THEREOF, WHERE THE ASSESSEE WAS NOT IN A POSITION TO PRODUCE ANY THEREOF, WHERE THE ASSESSEE WAS NOT IN A POSITION TO PRODUCE ANY CORROBORATIVE EVIDENCE TO SUPPORT THE ALLEGED PURCHASES MADE FROM THE SAID PARTIES, THE ASSESSING OFFICER SHOW CAUSED THE ASS ESSEE THAT SINCE THE PARTIES WERE BL A CKLISTED 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.74,73,020/ - SHOULD NOT BE DISALLOWED AND ADDED TO HIS TOTAL INCOME. SUFFICIENT OPPORTUNITY WAS GIVEN TO THE ASSESSEE AND THE LEARNED AUTHOR IZED 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 ACCORDING LY, 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 ITA NO. 2 026 /PN/20 1 4 SHRI MUKESHKUMAR PUKHRAJ MEHTA 10 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 CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE PRESENT CASE, WHEN THE ASSESSEE AT FIRST INSTANCE WAS CONFRONTED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO PROVE THE GENUINENES S OF ITS PURCHASES MADE FROM THE PARTIES , WHO WERE LISTED AS BOGUS PARTIES BY THE SALES TAX DEPARTMENT FOR NON - PAYMENT OF VAT, 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 MOVEMENT OF GOODS. HOWEVER, THE ASSESSEE CATEGORICALLY BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER A DMITTED THAT HE WAS NOT IN A POSITION TO PRODUCE A NY OF THE ABOVE. 12. BEFORE THE CIT(A), THE ASSESSEE THOUGH HAD FIRST ADMITTED THAT THE PURCHASES SHOULD BE ADDED AS ITS INCOME, CHANGED ITS STAND THAT THE ENTIRE PURCHASES COULD NOT BE DISALLOWED AS BOGUS, ONCE IT WAS HELD THAT THE SALES WERE GENUINELY E FFECTED. 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. SIDHIV INAYAK ENTERPRISES, MUMBAI FROM WHOM PURCHASES OF RS.12,73,892/ - HAD BEEN MADE WERE NOT FOUND IN THE LIST OF HAWALA DEALERS . T HE 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. ITA NO. 2 026 /PN/20 1 4 SHRI MUKESHKUMAR PUKHRAJ MEHTA 11 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 , INCURR ED FOR THE PURPOSE OF BUSINESS AND ALSO BY ESTABLISHING ITS CASE BY WAY OF CORROBORATIVE EVIDENCE. IN CASES, WHERE THE ASSESSEE CLAIMS THAT IT HAS MADE PURCHASES FROM VARIOUS PARTIES, JUST BECAUSE THE PURCHASES ARE EVIDENCED BY PURCHASE BILLS ARE NOT SUFF ICIENT EVIDENCE TO ESTABLISH THE GENUINENESS OF THE TRANSACTION, ESPECIALLY IN A CASE, WHERE THERE IS EVIDENCE WITH THE ASSESSING OFFICER THAT THE TRANSACTION ENTERED INTO BY THE ASSESSEE IS BOGUS. AS REFERRED TO BY US IN THE PARAS HEREINABOVE, THE PARTIE S FROM WHOM THE ASSESSEE HAD MADE THE PURCHASES WERE BL A CKLISTED BY THE SALES TAX DEPARTMENT ON THE FACT THAT THEY HAD ENTERED INTO ACCOMMODATION ENTRIES OF PROVIDING THE BILLS WITHOUT TRANSFER OF GOODS, ON WHICH THOUGH VAT WAS COLLECTED BUT WAS NOT DEPOSI TED 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 THAT THE SAID PARTIES WERE HAWALA DEALERS, WHEREIN THE SELLER HAD COLLECTED THE TAX BUT HAD NOT PAID TO THE SALES TAX DEPARTMENT. TH E SAID FACT HA D BEEN BROUGHT TO THE NOTICE BY THE LEARNED AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE FOR THE ASSESSEE. THE ASSESSEE IN THIS 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 EVIDENC ING THE VAT CHARGED TO THE ASSESSEE, DOES NOT ESTABLISH 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 STYLE OF M/S. ARIHANT TUBES FITTINGS I.E. THE ASSESSEE 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 ASSESSEE S PREMISES AT BHOSARI, PUNE. DESPITE THE ITA NO. 2 026 /PN/20 1 4 SHRI MUKESHKUMAR PUKHRAJ MEHTA 12 ASSESSING OFFICER AND THE CIT(A) HAVING GIVEN AMP LE OPPORTUNITY TO THE ASSESSEE TO PRODUCE THE CONFIRMATION OF PURCHASES BY WAY OF TRANSPORT RECEIPTS, WEIGH BRIDGE RECEIPTS, 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 A N ORDER SHEET NOTICE, 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 STO CK 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 ONU S CAST UPON HIM BY PRODUCING THE PARTIES, THEIR DISCHARGE THE ONU S CAST UPON HIM BY PRODUCING THE PARTIES, THEIR CONFIRMATIONS, TRANSPORT DETAILS, WEIGH BRIDGE AND OCTROI RECEIPTS, ETC. TO 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 R EGARDING MATCHING PRINCIPLES WAS DISMISSED BY THE CIT(A). 14. THE LEARNED AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE FOR THE ASSESSEE FILED BEFORE US A VOLUMINOUS COMPILATION OF DATA, WHICH WAS HEADED AS THE CHAR T S SHOWING DETAILS OF PURCHASE S EFFECTED FROM SO CALLED HAWA LA 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 CONTROLS LTD., ITA NO. 2 026 /PN/20 1 4 SHRI MUKESHKUMAR PUKHRAJ MEHTA 13 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, W HICH 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 A ND QUANTITYWISE SALES TURNED OUT FROM SUCH BRANDED AS HAWALA PURCHASES. WHEN CONFRONTED, THE LEARNED AUTHORIZED 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 REFLECTS SIMILAR ITEMS SIMILARLY NAMED HAVING BEEN COMPILED IN THAT PAPER BOOK REFLECTS SIMILAR ITEMS SIMILARLY NAMED HAVING BEEN CLAIMED TO HAVE DEALT BY THE ASSESSEE. HOWEVER, THE ASSESSEE HA D 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 PURCHAS ES WITH THE SALES ON A PARTICULAR DATE, HAS NO EVIDENTIARY VALUE. THE ASSESSEE IS UNABLE TO ESTABLISH THAT THE 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, WHI CH ADMITTEDLY WAS PREPARED FROM THE AVAILABLE SALES AND PURCHASE BILLS. THE ONUS IS UPON THE ASSESSEE THAT THE ITEMS WHICH IT CLAIM S 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 THE ABSENCE OF THE SAME AND ALSO IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY STOCK DETAILS BEING ITA NO. 2 026 /PN/20 1 4 SHRI MUKESHKUMAR PUKHRAJ MEHTA 14 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. DU RING 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 AUTH ORIZED REPRESENTATIVE FOR THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT DUE TO LARGE NUM BER OF ITEMS INVOLVED, IT WAS NOT PRACTICAL 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 PURC HASES 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 CAS E OF THE ASSESSEE HAS FURTHER GONE ON THE ISSUE THAT WHILE DECIDING THE CAS E OF THE ASSESSEE HAS FURTHER GONE ON THE ISSUE THAT WITHOUT PREJUDICE EVEN WHERE IT HAS ACCEPTED THAT THE CORRESPONDING 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 UNEXPLAINED 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 T HE 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 ITA NO. 2 026 /PN/20 1 4 SHRI MUKESHKUMAR PUKHRAJ MEHTA 15 TRIBUNAL IN M/S. BASSEIN DRUGS LTD. VS. ITO (SUPRA) . EVEN BEFORE T HE CIT(A), THE LEARNED AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE FOR THE ASSESSEE PLACED RELIANCE ON THE SAID DECISION. THE FACTS OF THE SAID CASE ARE AT A DIFFERENT FOOTING, WHEREIN COMPLETE DETAILS AND DOCUMENTS WERE FILED ON RECORD, ON THE BASIS OF WHICH THE CONCLUSIO N OF CIT(A) WAS THAT THE ALLEGED PURCHASES HAD BEEN USED IN THE MANUFACTURING OF DRUGS AND THEREFORE, THE QUANTIT Y OF SUCH DRUGS COULD NOT BE DOUBTED. HOWEVER, IN THE FACTS OF THE PRESENT CASE BEFORE US, DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, THE AS SESSEE HIMSELF ADMITTED THAT THE ENTIRE PURCHASES MAY BE ADDED IN HIS HANDS AS IT WAS MADE FROM THE BOGUS PARTIES. 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 . BEFOR E US, HE CLAIMS ALL THE BILLS WERE FILED WITH HIM, UNDER WHICH, HE HAS TRIED TO MATCH THE PURCHASES EFFECTED FROM THE HAWALA DEALE RS TO THE CORRESPONDING SALES, BUT NO OTHER EVIDENCE OF HOW HE HA S MATCHED THE TWO IS BROUGHT ON RECORD. THE ASSESSEE IS TRAD ING IN THE SAID GOODS FROM DAY TO DAY AND IT IS THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE IS TRAD ING IN THE SAID GOODS FROM DAY TO DAY AND IT IS THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE THAT THE ITEMS PURCHASED FROM THE HAWALA DEALERS ARE THE ONLY PURCHASES MADE OF THE SAID ITEMS. WHERE THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT MAINTAINED THE STOCK REGISTER, WHICH COULD ESTABLISH DATEWI SE INFLOW OF GOODS FROM DIFFERENT PARTIES, WHICH IN TURN, WERE SOLD BY HIM TO DIFFERENT PARTIES ON DATEWISE , THE ASSESSEE CLAIMS THAT HE HAS RECONCILED THE PURCHASES AND SALES . IN THE ABSENCE OF THE SAID DETAILS BEING MAINTAINED BY THE ASSESSEE, THE EXERC I SE OF PICKING UP OF ONE ITEM AND MATCHING WITH THE ANOTHER ITEM OF SALES , AROUND THE SAME DATE , THE DATA OF PURCHASES CANNOT BE VERIFIED BY ANY OF THE AUTHORITIES AS THE ASSESSEE IS A TRADER IN THE GOODS. HE WA S NOT A MANUFACTURER OF ITEMS, WHEREIN S OME KIND OF EXERCISE WOULD BE ESTABLISHED THAT CERTAIN ITEMS WERE UTILIZED TO GIVE THE DESIRED MANUFACTURED RESULTS. 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 PART ICULAR ITEM PURCHASED ON A PARTICULAR DATE , HA D BEEN SOLD BY THE ASSESSEE TO A ITA NO. 2 026 /PN/20 1 4 SHRI MUKESHKUMAR PUKHRAJ MEHTA 16 PARTICULAR PERSON ON A PARTICULAR DATE, IT IS NOT ONLY DIFFICULT, BUT IMPOSSIBLE TO MATCH THE PURCHASES AND SALES . EVEN IN ACCOUNTING P RINCIPLES , IT IS RECOGNIZED THAT WHERE TH E ASSESSEE IS A TRADER, THEN AT BEST FIFO METHOD OR LIFO METHOD MAY BE APPLIED I.E. FIRST IN FIRST OUT AND LAST IN FIRST O U T TO MATCH THE MOVEMENT OF GOODS . THE ACCOUNTING PRINCIPLES PROVIDED THAT THE ASSESSEE CAN MAINTAIN THE QUANTITY - WISE OR BILL - WISE A ND 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 WA S NOT SUBMITTED BEFORE ANY OF THE AUTHORITIES THOUGH BEFORE THE CIT(A) , THE ISSUE OF MATCHING CONCEPT WAS RAISED. 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, TRANSPORT ATION BILLS, DELIVERY CHALLANS, ETC. WE RE NOT AVAILABLE WITH THE ASSESSEE AND THE ASSESSEE HAS ADMITTED TO THE SAME BEFORE BOTH THE 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 AND THE EXPENDITURE INCURRED BY THE ASSESSEE, THUS, MERITS ADDITION IN THE HANDS OF ASSESSEE. WE FURTHER PLACE RELIANCE ON THE RATIO S LAID DOWN 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). 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 FACTS 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 C IT(A), WAS DELETED BY THE TRIBUNAL, IN VIEW OF THE FO LLOWING FACTUAL POSITIONS: - ITA NO. 2 026 /PN/20 1 4 SHRI MUKESHKUMAR PUKHRAJ MEHTA 17 (I) LETTERS OF CONFIRMATION FROM SUPPLIERS WERE FILED (II) COPIES OF BANK STATEMENT SHOWING ENTRIES OF PAYMENT THROUGH A/C PAYEE CHEQUES TO THE SUPPLIERS. (III) STOCK ST ATEMENTS WITH COMPLETE DETAILS OF OPENING STOCK, PURCHASES, SALES AND CLOSING STOCK WERE FILED . (IV) SUBSTANTIAL AMOUNT OF SAL ES WERE MADE TO THE GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENTS LIKE DEFENCE RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT LABORATORY, HYDERABAD . 1 8 . THE HONBLE BOMBAY H IGH COURT UPHELD THE ORDER OF TRIBUNAL, IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE FACTUAL ASPECTS AND FURTHER HELD THAT THE DISALLOWANCE 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 O F THE NO N - GENUINENESS OF THE PARTIES AND THE SAME BEING DECLARED AS BOGUS BY THE SALES TAX DEPARTMENT, THE LEARNED AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE FOR THE ASSESSEE ADMITTED BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER THAT THE SAME MAY BE TREATED AS BOGUS AND AM OUNT MAY BE ADDE D IN HIS HANDS. THE ONUS IS UPON THE ASSESSEE TO ESTABLISH THAT IT HAD MADE THE SAID PURCHASES FROM THE SAID PARTIES. 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 ESTABLISH THE TRANSACTION. 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 FIND 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. ITA NO. 2 026 /PN/20 1 4 SHRI MUKESHKUMAR PUKHRAJ MEHTA 18 19. THE LEARNED AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE FOR THE ASSESSEE PLACING RELIANCE ON VARIOUS DECISIONS AS REFERRED ABOVE, POINTED OUT THAT I N 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 SPEC IFIC PURCHASES ARE HELD TO BE BOGUS, THEN THE ADDITION IS TO BE MADE TO THE EXTENT OF AMOUNT OF SUCH UNVERIFIABLE AND UN SUBSTANTIATED PURCHASES. THE LEARNED AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE FOR THE ASSESSEE FURTHER PLACED RELIANCE ON SERIES OF DECISIONS BY DIFFE RENT BENCHES OF TRIBUNAL AND VARIOUS HONB LE 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 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 CASES, 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 . ANOTHE R 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 EFFECT ED BY THEM, HAVE COME BACK TO THE ASSESSEE, NO ADDITION 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 FRO M THE ITA NO. 2 026 /PN/20 1 4 SHRI MUKESHKUMAR PUKHRAJ MEHTA 19 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 ABSENC E OF ANY VERIFICATION EXERCISE CARRIED OUT BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. THE ASSESSEE HAS FAILED TO FURNISH THE CONFIRMATION FROM THE PARTIES AND THE SALES TAX DEP ARTMENT 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 BECAUS E SUCH VIEW HAS BEEN TAKEN IN ANY OTHER DECISION, THE SAME CANNOT BE APPLIED WHERE THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT DISCHARGED 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), 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. 21. THE ISSUE IN GROUND OF APPEAL NO.5 RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE IS AGAINST THE ADDITION OF R S.15,65,000/ - UNDER SECTION 68 OF THE ACT. 22. THE ASSESSING OFFICER NOTED THAT DURING THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION, THE ASSESSEE HAD ACCEPTED UNSECURED LOANS FROM VARIOUS PARTIES TO THE EXTENT OF RS.50,05,000/ - . THE SAID LOANS WERE TAKEN FROM SIX CREDIT ORS AND THE ASSESSEE WAS ASKED TO PROVIDE THE CONFIRMATION, INCOME - TAX ACKNOWLEDGEMENT S, BANK ACCOUNT EXTRACTS IN RESPECT OF LOAN CREDITORS. THOUGH THE ASSESSEE FURNISHED THE CONFIRMATION AND INCOME - TAX ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS, BANK ACCOUNT EXTRACTS OF THREE PAR TIES TOTALLING RS. 15,65,000/ - WAS NOT FURNISHED. THE ASSESSING OFFICER OBSERVED THAT IN THE ABSENCE OF SUPPORTING BANK ACCOUNT EXTRACTS, INCOME - TAX ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS, ETC., THE CORRECTNESS , GENUINENESS AND CREDITWORTHINESS OF THE SAID LOAN ITA NO. 2 026 /PN/20 1 4 SHRI MUKESHKUMAR PUKHRAJ MEHTA 20 CREDITORS COULD NOT BE ESTABLISHED. THE LEARNED AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE FOR THE ASSESSEE WAS ASKED TO SHOW CAUSE AS TO WHY THE SAID AMOUNT SHOULD NOT BE TREATED AS UNEXPLAINED CREDIT UNDER SECTION 68 OF THE ACT. IN REPLY, THE ASSESSEE STATED THAT THE DETAILS ASKED FOR COULD NOT BE PRODUCED AND THE SAID AMOUNT MAY BE ADDED TO THE TOTAL INCOME. ACCORDINGLY, SUM OF RS.15,65,000/ - WAS ADDED UNDER SECTION 68 OF THE ACT. 23. BEFORE THE CIT(A), NO FURTHER DETAILS WERE FILED , EVEN THE PAN IN RESPECT OF ONLY ONE OF THE PART IES WAS FILED. SINCE THE CREDITWORTHINESS OF THE CREDITORS AS WELL AS THE GENUINENESS OF THE TRANSACTION WAS NOT ESTABLISHED, THE CIT(A) UPHELD THE ADDITION. 24. BEFORE US, THE LEARNED AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE FOR THE ASSESSEE POINTED OUT THAT BEFORE TH E ASSESSING OFFICER, THE ADMISSION WAS MADE THAT THE SAID AMOUNT MAY BE ADDED IN ITS INCOME. HE FURTHER ADMITTED THAT THE THE SAID AMOUNT MAY BE ADDED IN ITS INCOME. HE FURTHER ADMITTED THAT THE DETAILS ASKED FOR WERE AVAILABLE, BUT NONE OF THE SAID DETAILS HAVE BEEN FILED. WE FIND NO MERIT IN THE STAND OF THE LEARNED AUTHORI ZED REPRESENTATIVE FOR THE ASSESSEE IN THIS REGARD. BOTH THE LOWER AUTHORITIES HAD TIME AND AGAIN ASKED THE ASSESSEE TO FURNISH THE COMPLETE DETAILS IN RESPECT OF LOAN CREDITORS, BUT THE ASSESSEE FAILED TO FURNISH THE DETAILS AND BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFI CER, HE ADMITTED THAT THE SAME MAY BE ADDED AS HIS INCOME. IN THE ABSENCE OF THE ASSESSEE HAVING FILED THE NECESSARY BANK DETAILS AND THE INCOME - TAX ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS OF FILING THE RETURN OF INCOME, THE CREDITWORTHINESS OF THE CREDITORS AS WELL AS THE GENU INENESS OF THE TRANSACTION COULD NOT BE PROVED AND HENCE, WE UPHOLD THE ORDER OF CIT(A) IN CONFIRMING THE AFORESAID ADDITION. ACCORDINGLY, THE GROUND OF APPEAL NO.5 RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE IS DISMISSED. 25. THE ISSUE IN GROUND OF APPEAL NO.6 IS AGAINST THE ADDITION OF RS.2,00,000/ - MADE ON ACCOUNT OF STOCK VALUATION. ITA NO. 2 026 /PN/20 1 4 SHRI MUKESHKUMAR PUKHRAJ MEHTA 21 26. DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, THE ASSESSING OFFICER FOUND THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD NOT MAINTAINED DAY - TO - DAY STOCK REGISTER, DUE TO WHICH CORRECTNESS OF THE VALUE OF STOCK COULD NOT BE VERIFIED. WHEN CONFRONTED ON THE ISSUE, THE LEARNED AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE FOR THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT DUE TO LARGE NUMBER OF ITEMS INVOLVED, IT WAS NOT PRACTICAL TO MAINTAIN DAY - TO - DAY STOCK REGISTER. THOUGH THE ASSESSEE CLAIMS THAT THE STOCK REGISTER WAS PREPARED ON THE BASIS OF PHYSICAL VERIFICATION, BUT NO PROOF OF PHYSICAL VERIFICATION WAS FILED BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER, HENCE, THE ASSESSING OFFICER MADE LUMP SUM ADDITION OF RS.2,00,000/ - . BEFORE THE CIT(A), THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE WAS THAT NO SUCH ADDITION COULD BE MADE SINCE THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT WERE AUDITED UNDER SECTION 44AB OF THE ACT. THE CIT(A) UPHELD THE ADDITION HOLDING THAT THOUGH THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT WERE AUDITED UNDER SECTION 44AB OF THE ACT, BUT CONSIDERING TH E FACT OF BOGUS PURCHASES, UNEXPLAINED CREDITORS, WHICH WERE THE SUBJECT MATTER OF EARLIER PURCHASES, UNEXPLAINED CREDITORS, WHICH WERE THE SUBJECT MATTER OF EARLIER GROUNDS OF APPEAL , THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT COULD NOT BE HELD TO BE RELIABLE AND WHERE THE ASSESSEE WAS NOT MAINTAINING STOCK REGISTER , T O MAKE TALLY OF STOCK WAS IMPOSS IBLE. THEREFORE, THE DISALLOWANCE MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER WAS HELD TO BE JUSTIFIED. 27. THE LEARNED AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE FOR THE ASSESSEE BEFORE US HAS RAISED THE PLEA THAT WITHOUT REJECTION OF BOOKS OF ACCOUNT, THE SAID ADDITION COULD NOT BE MADE. 28. WE FIND NO MERIT IN THE SAID PLEA OF THE ASSESSEE AS IN LINE WITH OUR OBSERVATIONS WHILE DECIDING THE APPEAL IN GROUND OF APPEAL NOS.1 TO 4. ACCORDING LY, WE DISMISS THE GROUND OF APPEAL NO.6 RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE. ITA NO. 2 026 /PN/20 1 4 SHRI MUKESHKUMAR PUKHRAJ MEHTA 22 29. THE ISSUE IN GROUND OF A PPEAL NO.7 IS AGAINST THE CHARGING OF INTEREST UNDER SECTION 234A, 234B AND 234C OF THE ACT , WHICH IS CONSEQUENTIAL AND HENCE, THE SAID GROUND OF APPEAL NO.7 IS ALSO DISMISSED. THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE ARE THUS, DISMISSED. 30 . IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS DISMISSED. ORDER P RONOUNCED ON THIS 3 RD DAY OF NOVEMBER , 201 5 . SD/ - SD/ - ( R.K. PANDA ) ( SUSHMA CHOWLA ) / ACCOUNTANT MEMB ER / JUDICIAL MEMBER / PUNE ; DATED : 3 RD NOVEMBER , 2015 . GCVSR / COPY OF THE ORDER IS FORWARDED TO : / COPY OF THE ORDER IS FORWARDED TO : 1. / THE APPELLANT ; 2. / THE RESPONDENT; 3. ( ) / THE CIT (A) - V , PUNE ; 4. / THE CIT - V , PUNE ; 5. , , / DR A , ITAT, PUNE; 6. / GUARD FILE . / BY ORDER , // TRUE COPY // / SR. PRIVATE SECRETARY , / ITAT, PUNE RUE COPY//