EMINENT GAS TECHNOLOGIES PRIVATE LIMITED, MUMBAI V. INCOME TAX OFFICER - WARD 1(1), MUMBAI

ITA 203/MUM/2018

• Counselvise Citation: [2019] 117 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 4849 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 4 month(s) 15 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 23-05-2019
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: E
• Assessment Year: 2009-2010
• Appeal Filed On: 08-01-2018
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Bogus purchase; Wrong claim; Corroborative evidences
• Section: 69C; 142(1); 133(6); 143(1); 68; 148

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL E BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI M. BALAGANESH , AM AND SHRI AMARJIT SINGH , JM I.T.A. NO S . 203 TO 204 /M/201 8 ( ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2009 - 10 & 2010 - 11 ) EMINENT GAS TECHNOLOGIES PVT. LTD. 29 HARIA INDUSTRIAL ESTATE OFF LBS MARG MAJIWADA THANE WEST . VS. ITO WARD 1 KALYAN MOHAN PLAZA KHADAKPADA KALYAN WEST. ./ ./ PAN/GIR NO. : AABCE6652J ( APPELLANT ) .. ( RESPONDENT ) DATE OF HEARING : 01 /0 5 / 201 9 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 23 /05/ 201 9 O R D E R PER AMARJIT SINGH, JM: THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED THE ABOVE MENTIONED APPEALS AGAINST THE DIFFERENT ORDER PASSED BY THE COMMIS S IONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) - 2 , PUNE [HEREINAFTER REFERRED TO AS THE CIT(A)] RELEVANT TO THE ASSESSMENT YEAR S 2009 - 10 & 2010 - 11 . I.T.A.NO.203 /M/201 8 2 . THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED THE PRESENT A PPEAL AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 22.09.201 7 PASSED BY THE COMMISS IONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) - 2 , ASSESSEE BY: NONE DEPARTMENT BY: SHRI SACHCHIDANAND DUBE (DR) ITA. NO. 203 TO 204 /M/201 8 (A.YS.) : 2009 - 10 & 2010 - 11 2 PUNE [HEREINAFTER REFERRED TO AS THE CIT(A)] RELEVAN T TO THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2009 - 10 . 3. THE ASSESSEE HAS RAISED THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS: - I) THE LD. CIT(A) - 2 PUNE CAMP OFFICE THANE HAS ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE ADDITION OF RS.6,04,182/ - MADE ON ACCOUNT OF ALLEGED HAWALA PURCHASES. 2. THE APPELLANT CRAVES, LEAVE TO ADD, ALTER, AMEND AND MODIFY THE AFORESAID GROUND, OF APPEAL AT OR ANY TIME BEFORE THE HEARING AS MAY BE ADVISED FROM TIME TO TIME. B . RELIEF CLAIMED 1. THE ADDITION CONFIRMED TO THE TUNE OF RS.6,04,182/ - BY THE CIT(A) - 2 PUNE CAMP OFFICE THANE ON ACCOUNT OF ALLEGED HAWALA PURCHASE BEING NOT WARRANTED BY FACTS BE DELETED. 2. ANY OTHER RELIEF AS DEEMED FIT BY THE AUTHORITY. 4 . THE BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT THE ASSESSEE FILED ITS RETURN OF INCOME ON 26.09.2009 DECLARING T OTAL INCOME TO THE TUNE OF RS.9,56,900/ - . THE RETURN WAS PROCESSED U/S 143(1) OF THE I.T. ACT, 1961. THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE WAS REOPENED U/S 148 OF THE ACT BY ISSUANCE OF NOTICE DATED 20.03.2013 WHICH WAS SERVED UPON THE ASSESSEE. THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE WAS REOPENED ON THE BASIS OF INFORMATION RECEIVED FROM THE SALES TAX DEPARTMENT OF MAHARASHTRA IN WHICH THE NAME AND ADDRESS AND OTHER DETAILS OF THE CE RTAIN PERSONS WERE GIVEN WHO PROVIDED THE ENTRIES OF BOGUS PURCHASES BILLS TO A LARGE NUMBER OF BOGUS PURCHASES. THE ASSESSEE WAS ALSO ONE OF BENEFICIARY. THE ASSESSEE PURCHASE D THE MATERIAL FROM 3 PARTIES IN SUM ITA. NO. 203 TO 204 /M/201 8 (A.YS.) : 2009 - 10 & 2010 - 11 3 OF RS.6,04,182/ - . THE CLAIM OF THE PARTIES ARE HEREBY MENTIONED AS UNDER.: - SR. NO NAME OF THE ENTRY PROVIDER MAHARASTRA VAT A.Y. AMOUNT IN THE PURCHASE BILLS TAKEN BY THE ASSESSEE 1 MODERN TRADERS 27030013796V 2009 - 10 RS.2,67,326/ - 2 KLUDEE SALES 27596029008V 2009 - 10 RS.1,73,588/ - 3 MILLENIUM ENTERPRISES 27730160615V 2009 - 10 RS.163,268/ - RS.6,04,182/ - AFTER THE ISSUANCE OF NOTICE U/S 148 DATED 20.03.2016 THE ASSESSEE NOWHERE RESPONSE, SUBSEQUENTLY, NOTICE U/S 143(2) & 142(1) OF THE ACT WERE ISSUED AND SERVED UPON THE ASSESSEE. THE ASSESSE E FAILED TO APPEAR BEFORE THE AO . A FINAL OPPORTUNITY VIDE NOTICE DATED 27.01.2014 WAS ALSO GIVEN BUT THE ASSESSEE FAILED TO ATTEND THE PROCEEDING. THEREFORE, THE PURCHASE IN SUM OF RS.6,04,182/ - WAS ADDED TO THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE. FEELING AGGRIEVED, THE ASSESSEE FILED AN APPEAL BEFORE THE CIT(A) WHO CONFIRMED THE ADDITION , THEREFORE, THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED THE PRESENT APPEAL BEFORE US. ISSUE NO. 1 5 . WE HAVE HEARD ARGUMENTS ADVANCED BY THE LD. REPRESENTATIVE OF THE DEPARTMENT AND GONE THROUGH THE RECORD CAREFULLY . THE ASSESSEE HAS CHALLENGED THE CONFIRMATION OF THE ADDITION OF BOGUS PURCHASE IN SUM OF RS.6,04,182/ - . THE NOTICE WAS GIVEN TO THE ASSESSEE BUT THE ASSESSEE FAILED TO ATTEND THE PROCEEDING BEFORE US ALSO . BEFORE GOING ITA. NO. 203 TO 204 /M/201 8 (A.YS.) : 2009 - 10 & 2010 - 11 4 F URTHER, WE DEEM IT NECESSARY TO ADVERT THE FINDING OF THE CIT(A) ON RECORD.: - 5.1 I HAVE PERUSED THE FACTS AS MENTIONED IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER AS WELL AS ARGUMENTS TAKEN ON BEHALF OF THE APPELLANT. ON A PERUSAL OF THE FACTS, IT IS SEEN THAT THE SALES TAX DEPARTMENT INFORMED THAT THE APPELLANT WAS BENEFICIARY OF HAWALA PURCHASES TO THE TUNE OF RS.6,04,182/ - FROM THE THREE ENTRY PROVIDERS AS UNDER : SR. NO NAME OF THE ENTRY PROVIDER MAHARASTRA VAT A.Y. AMOUNT IN THE PURCHASE BILLS TAKEN BY THE ASSESSEE 1 MO DERN TRADERS 27030013796V 2009 - 10 RS.2,67,326/ - 2 KLUDEE SALES 27596029008V 2009 - 10 RS.1,73,588/ - 3 MILLENIUM ENTERPRISES 27730160615V 2009 - 10 RS.163,268/ - RS.6,04,182/ - 5.2 IT HAS BEEN ARGUED ON BEHALF OF THE APPELLANT THAT THE PURCHASES ARE GENUINE AS BECAUSE PAYMENTS WERE MADE BY CHEQUE AND THEY ARE DULY SUPPORTED BY BILLS AND LEDGER EXTRACT OF THE PARTIES. THE APPELLANT HAS DRAWN SUPPORT FROM THE DECISION OF HONBLE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. NIKUNJ EXEMPT ENTERPRISES PVT. LTD (216 TAXMAN 171)(BOM.) BESIDES OTHER DECISIONS. 5.3 IT IS SEEN THAT THE SALES TAX DEPARTMENT RECORDED THE STATEMENT ON OATH OF THESE HAWALA SUPPLIERS AND IN THEIR STATEMENT, THEY HAD CLEARLY ADMITTED THAT THEY WERE MERELY LENDING THEIR NAME AND SI GNATURE WITH REGARD TO THE TRANSACTIONS CARRIED OUT IN THE NAME OF THE SAID CONCERNS. THESE HAWALA OPERATORS ALSO ADMITTED THAT TRANSACTIONS ARE ONLY ON PAPER AND NO MATERIALS WERE ACTUALLY SUPPLIED. THE ASSESSING OFFICER DURING THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS GAVE OPPORTUNITIES TO THE ASSESSEE TO EXPLAIN THE HAWALA PURCHASES BUT NO SUBMISSION WAS FILED BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER. 5.4 ON THE BASIS OF FACTS NOTED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER AS WELL AS VERIFICATION MADE BY THE SALES TAX DEPARTMENT, FOLLOWING FACTS EMERGE: I. THE ALLEGED SUPPLIERS HAD HIMSELF ADMITTED BEFORE THE SALES TAX AUTHORITY THAT THEY WERE NOT SUPPLYING ANY MATERIAL BUT WERE ISSUING BILLS FOR THE PURPOSE OF EARNING SOME COMMISSION. ITA. NO. 203 TO 204 /M/201 8 (A.YS.) : 2009 - 10 & 2010 - 11 5 II. THE APPELLANT COULD NOT OTHERWISE PROVE DURING THE ASSESS MENT PROCEEDINGS OR APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS, THE GENUINENESS OF THE SUPPLY MADE. III. NO CONFIRMATION ETC. OF THE SUPPLIER WAS FILED OTHER DURING THE ASSESSMENT OR APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS. IV. THE EVIDENCES PRODUCED IN THE FORM OF INWARD REGISTER, COPY OF LEDG ER ACCOUNT ETC. ARE ALL SELF - MADE. V. NO DETAILS OF TRANSPORTATION WAS FILED CONTAINING VEHICLE NUMBER NOR, OCTROI RECEIPTS WERE FILED. VI. NO PURCHASE ORDERS AND STOCK REGISTER COULD BE PRODUCED. 5.5 THE LD. COUNSEL OF THE APPELLANT HAS PLACED RELIANCE ON THE RATIO LAID DOWN IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. NIKUNJ EXIMP ENTERPRISES PVT. LTD. (SUPRA). IN THE FACTS OF THE CASE BEFORE THE HON'BLE BOMBAY HIGH COURT, THE ADDITION ON ACCOUNT OF BOGUS PURCHASES MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND UPHELD BY THE CIT(A), WAS DE LETED BY THE TRIBUNAL IN VIEW OF THE FOLLOWING FACTUAL POSITIONS: 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 STATEMENTS WITH COMPLETE DETAILS OF OPENING STOCK, PURCHASES, SALES AND CLOSING STOCK WERE FILED. IV. SUBSTANTIAL AMOUNT OF SALES WERE MADE TO THE GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENTS LIKE DEFENCE RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT LABORATORY, HYDERABAD. 5.6 THE HONBLE BOMBAY HIGH COURT UPHELD THE ORDE R OF THE TRIBUNAL IN VIEW OF ABOVE FACTUAL ASPECT AND HELD THAT DISALLOWANCE CANNOT BE MADE JUST BECAUSE PARTIES WERE NOT PRODUCED. HOWEVER, IN THE FACTS OF THE PRESENT CASE, THE APPELLANT HAS NOT MAINTAINED ANY STOCK DETAILS I.E. THE DETAILS OF OPENING ST OCK, PURCHASES, CONSUMPTION, SALES AND CLOSING STOCK NOR HAS HE PRODUCED ANY EVIDENCE OF THE GOODS BEING RECEIVED BY HIM EXCEPT SOME SELF - MADE INWARD REGISTER. FURTHERMORE, WHEN HE WAS CONFRONTED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER REGARDING NON - GENUINENESS OF THE A LLEGED SUPPLIERS, THEN ALSO THE APPELLANT DID NOT FURNISH ANY DETAILS OR EVIDENCES TO PROVE THE GENUINE OF THE SUPPLIERS ITA. NO. 203 TO 204 /M/201 8 (A.YS.) : 2009 - 10 & 2010 - 11 6 THE ONUS IS UPON THE ASSESSEE TO ESTABLISH THAT IT HAD MADE THE SAID PURCHASES FROM THE SAID PARTY. ON THE FACE OF THESE FACTS AND ASSE SSEE HAVING FAILED TO ESTABLISH THE TRANSACTION BY WAY OF CORROBORATIVE EVIDENCES, MERELY STATING THAT THE PAYMENTS WERE MADE BY ACCOUNT PAYEE CHEQUES, WILL NOT PROVE THAT PURCHASES WERE GENUINE PARTICULARLY IN VIEW OF PLETHORA OF EVIDENCES AGAINST HIM. 5. 7 IN THE UNDER MENTIONED CASES, COURTS HAVE HELD THAT WHERE PURCHASES MADE BY THE ASSESSEE WERE FOUND BOGUS AND NOT GENUINE THEN THE ASSESSING OFFICER WAS JUSTIFIED IN ADDING THE AMOUNT OF PURCHASES TOWARDS ITS INCOME. (I) KAVERI RICE MILLS VS. CIT (157 TA XMAN 376)(ALL.) (II) J R SOLVENT INDUSTRY PVT LTD. VS. CIT (209 TAXMAN 18)( P & H) 5.8 HONBLE ITAT PUNE BENCH IN A RECENT DECISION IN THE CASE OF M/S. CHHABI ELECTRICALS PVT. LTD AND ORS. IN ITA NO.795/PUN/2014 DATED 28.04.2017 HAS LAID DOWN FOLLOWING GUI DELINES FOR MAKING DISALLOWANCES IN THE CASES OF HAWALA PURCHASES: IN CASE NO INFORMATION IS RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER FROM THE SALE TAX DEPARTMENT AND NO COPY OF STATEMENT RECORDED OR ANY OTHER EVIDENCE IS RECEIVED FROM THE SALES TAX DEPARTMENT. T HEN NO ADDITION IS TO BE MADE ON THE BASIS OF NAME OF HAWALA DEALER IN THE LIST PREPARED BY THE SALES TAX DEPARTMENT, WHERE THE ASSESSEE HAD ASKED FOR THE SAID INFORMATION DURING ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS. WHERE THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAD RECEIVED THE STATEMENTS OF PERSONS WHO HAD ADMITTED TO HAVE JUST ISSUED BILLS OF SALE WITHOUT ANY DELIVERY OF GOODS. IN VIEW OF SUCH EVIDENCE, WHERE THE ASSESSEE HAD NOT ENTERED INTO REA! TRANSACTION OF PURCHASE OF GOODS AND IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY DELIVERY OF GOODS, THE SALES ARE BOGUS AND THE ENTIRE SALES ARE TO BE ADDED IN THE HANDS OF ASSESSEE. ADMITTEDLY THE DEALER HAD NOT EVEN PAID VAT AGAINST SUCH PASSING OF GOODS. III. THE CASE WHERE THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAD CONFRONTED THE INFORMATION RECEIVED FROM THE SALES TAX DEPARTMENT AND HAD SUPPLIED COPIES OF STATEMENTS RECORDED AND HAD ALSO ISSUED NOTICE UNDER SECTION 133(6) OF THE ACT, WHERE HAWALA DEALER WAS NOT TRACEABLE AND IN THE ABSENCE OF THE ASSESSEE FAILING TO FILE ANY DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE OF DELIVERY OF GOODS, AD DITION IS TO BE UPHELD IN THE HANDS OF ASSESSEE ON ACCOUNT OF SUCH BOGUS PURCHASES. ITA. NO. 203 TO 204 /M/201 8 (A.YS.) : 2009 - 10 & 2010 - 11 7 IV, THE NEXT INSTANCE S THE CASE OF GOODS WHICH HAVE BEEN ADMITTEDLY SOLD BY THE HAWALA DEALER AND HAS BEEN RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSEE, WHO IN TURN HAD MAINTAINED QUANTITATIV E DETAILS AND ALSO EVIDENCE OF ITS MOVEMENT I.E. TRANSPORTATION DETAILS AND QUALITY CONTROL DETAILS OF CONSUMPTION OF THE SAID MATERIAL OR EXACT DETAILS OF SALE OF THE SAME CONSIGNMENT THROUGH SAME TRANSPORTER DIRECTLY TO THE PARTY, THEN 'HE TOTAL PURCHASE S CANNOT BE ADDED IN THE HANDS OF ASSESSEE. HOWEVER, SINCE THE PURCHASES ARE MADE FROM THE GREY MARKET, SOME ESTIMATION NEEDS TO BE MADE IN THE HANDS OF ASSESSEE. THE TRIBUNAL IN MIS. CHETAN ENTERPRISES VS. ACIT (SUPRA) HAS ALREADY HELD THAT THE ADDITION B E MADE BY ESTIMATING THE SAME @ 10% OF THE ALLEGED HAWALA PURCHASES, OVER AND ABOVE THE GP SHOWN BY THE RESPECTIVE ASSESSEE. V. ANOTHER SET OF CASES WHERE THE STATEMENTS RECORDED BY THE SALES TAX DEPARTMENT HAVE BEEN HANDED OVER TO THE ASSESSEE AND THE COP IES OF SAME HAVE BEEN SUPPLIED TO THE ASSESSEE, THEN WHERE THE ASSESSEE ESTABLISHED THE CASE OF RECEIPT OF GOODS AND ITS ONWARD TRANSMISSION, THEN THE FACTUM OF OUR PURCHASES BY THE ASSESSEE STANDS ESTABLISHED IN SUCH CIRCUMSTANCES. HOWEVER, ESTIMATION IS TO BE MADE IN THE HANDS OF ASSESSEE BECAUSE OF PURCHASES FROM THE GREY MARKET AND FOLLOWING THE ABOVE SAID RATIO, ADDITION IS 10 BE MADE BY ESTIMATING THE SAME 10% OF THE ALLEGED HAWALA PURCHASES, OVER AND ABOVE THE NET PROFIT SHOWN BY THE ASSESSEE. 5.9 THE CASE OF THE APPELLANT FALLS UNDER CLAUSE II OF THE AFORESAID GUIDELINES AS IN THE PRESENT CASE, THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAD RECEIVED THE DETAILS AND DECLARATION OF THE HAWALA SUPPLIERS FROM THE SALES TAX DEPARTMENT AND THE APPELLANT COULD NOT PRODUCE AN Y DETAILS EVIDENCING GENUINENESS OF THE PURCHASES. 5.10 THE APPELLANT HAS TAKEN AN ALTERNATIVE ARGUMENT THAT ONLY GROSS PROFIT MAY BE TAXED ON THESE PURCHASES. I AM UNABLE TO ACCEPT THIS CONTENTION AND I DRAW STRENGTH FROM THE DECISION OF HON'BLE HIGH COUR T OF GUJARAT IN THE CASE OF N. K. PROTEINS LTD VS. DCIT IN IT APPEAL NO. 240 - 242/2003 DATED 20/06/2016 IN WHICH THE HONBLE COURT HAS RECOGNIZED THE PRINCIPLE THAT IF AN EXPENDITURE INCLUDING PURCHASES IS PROVED TO BE BOGUS UNDER THE IT ACT THEN THE PROVIS ION OF SECTION 69C DOES NOT PERMIT ALLOWING PARTIAL EXPENDITURE. THE RELEVANT PORTION OF THE DECISION OF THE HONBLE COURT READS AS UNDER: THE TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF VIJAY PROTEINS LTD. VS. CIT HAS OBSERVED THAT IT WOULD BE JUST AND PROPER TO DIRECT THE ASSES:4N OFFICER TO RESTRICT THE ADDITION IN RESPECT OF THE ITA. NO. 203 TO 204 /M/201 8 (A.YS.) : 2009 - 10 & 2010 - 11 8 UNDISCLOSED INCOME RELATING TO THE PURCHASES TO 25% OF THE TOTAL PURCHASES. TH E SAID DECISION WAS CONFIRMED BY THIS COURT AS WELL. ON CONSIDERATION OF THE MATTER, WE FIND THAT THE FACTS OF THE PRESENT CASE ARE IDENTICAL TO THOSE OF M/ S. INDIAN WOOLLEN CARPET FACTORY (SUPRA) OR M/ S. VIJAY PROTEINS LTD. IN THE PRESENT CASE THE TRIBU NAL HAS CATEGORICALLY OBSERVED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD SHOWN BOGUS PURCHASES AMOUNTING TO RS.2,92,93,288/ - AND TAXING ONLY 25% OF THESE BOGUS CLAIM GOES AGAINST THE PRINCIPLES OF SECTIONS 68 AND 69C OF THE INCOME TAX ACT. THE ENTIRE PURCHASES SHOWN ON THE BA SIS OF FICTITIOUS INVOICES HAVE BEEN DEBITED IN THE TRADING ACCOUNT SINCE THE TRANSACTION HAS BEEN FOUND TO BE BOGUS. THE TRIBUNAL HAVING ONCE COME TO A CATEGORICAL FINDING THAT THE AMOUNT OF RS. 2,92,93,288/ - REPRESENTED ALLEGED PURCHASES FROM BOUT'S SUPP LIERS IT WAS NOT INCUMBENT ON IT TO RESTRICT THE DISALLOWANCE TO ONLY RS.73,23,322/,' 5.11 IN THE ABOVE CASE, HON'BLE ITAT HAD GIVEN THE FINDING THAT ENTIRE PURCHASES WERE CLAIMED IN THE P&L ACCOUNT ON THE BASIS OF FICTITIOUS INVOICES. THE FINDING WAS BASE D ON SEIZED MATERIALS AND OTHER DOCUMENTS. HONBLE ITAT HAD CONFIRMED ONLY 25% OF THE PURCHASES AS DISALLOWABLE AND NOT 100% AS MADE BY THE AO. HON'BLE COURT IN VIEW OF THESE FACTS HELD THAT ONCE THE ENTIRE PURCHASES WERE FOUND TO BE BOGUS THEN RESTRICTING THE DISALLOWANCE ONLY TO THE EXTENT OF 25% GOES AGAINST THE PRINCIPLE OF SECTION 69C OF THE IT ACT. IT IS FURTHER NOTICED THAT SLP FILED AGAINST THE DECISION OF HON'BLE HIGH COURT WAS DISMISSED BY THE HON'BLE SUPREME COURT IN CC NO. 769/2017 VIDE ORDER DA TED 16.01.2017. 5.12 IN THE LIGHT OF THE AFORESAID DISCUSSION ON THE FACTS OF THE CASE, I FIND NO MERIT IN THE ARGUMENTS TAKEN ON BEHALF OF THE APPELLANT. ON THE FACE OF ADVERSE FINDING BY THE SALES TAX DEPARTMENT WITH REGARD TO THE ALLEGED SUPPLIERS WHICH WERE FURTHER CORROBORATED DURING THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, IT IS HELD THAT THE APPELLANT WAS INVOLVED IN HAWALA TRANSACTION TO THE EXTENT OF PURCHASES OF RS. 6,04,182/ - . THE APPELLANT JUST PROCURED ACCOMMODATION BILLS WITHOUT ANY ACTUAL TRANSACTION AND THEREFORE THE ADDITION MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS CONFIRMED. THE GROUNDS RAISED ARE ACCORDINGLY DISMISSED. 6 . ON APPRAISAL OF THE ABOVE MENTIONED FINDING OF THE AO AS WELL AS CIT(A), WE NOTICED THAT THE ASSESSEE NOWHERE ADDUCED ANY KIND ITA. NO. 203 TO 204 /M/201 8 (A.YS.) : 2009 - 10 & 2010 - 11 9 EVIDENCE ON RECORD TO JUSTIFY THE CLAIM . NOTHING WAS ADDUCED BEFORE THE AO AND THE ASSESSEE DID NOT MAINTAIN THE STOCK DETAILS I.E. THE DETAILS OF OPENING STOCK, PURCHASES, CONSUMPTION, SALES AND CLOSING STOCK NOR HAS HE PRODUCED ANY EVIDENCE OF THE GOODS BEING RECEIVED BY HIM EXCEPT ENTRY OF SELF - MADE INWARD REGISTER. CONSIDER OF THE FACTS OF THE CIRCUMSTANCES, THE CIT(A) CONFIRMED THE ADDITION TO THE WHOLE BOGUS PURCHASE OF RS.6,04,182/ - . THE FACTS ARE NOT DISTINGUISHABL E AT THIS STAGE ALSO. EVEN BEFORE US, THE ASSESSEE NOWHERE APPEARED AND PRODUCED ANY EVIDENCE OF ANY KIND IN SUPPORT OF HIS CLAIM. I N VIEW OF THE SAID CIRCUMSTANCES, WE CONFIRM THE FINDING OF THE CIT(A) ON THIS ISSUE AND DECIDE THIS ISSUE IN FAVOUR OF THE REVENUE AGAINST THE ASSESSEE. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS HEREBY ORDERED TO BE DISMISSED. I.T.A.NO. 204 /M/201 8 7 . THE FACT S OF THE PRESENT CASE ARE QUITE IDENTICAL TO THE FACTS OF THE CASE AS NARRATED ABOVE WHILE DECIDING THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE BEARING ITA. NO.203 /M/201 8 ABOVE , THEREFORE, THERE IS NO NEED TO REPEAT THE SAME . HOWEVER, THE FIGURE IS DIFFERENT. THE MATTER OF CONTROVERSY ADJUDICATED IN APPEAL BEA RING IT A. NO.203 /M/201 8 IS QUITE APPLICABLE TO THE FACTS OF THE PR ESENT CASE AS MUTATIS MUTANDIS. ITA. NO. 203 TO 204 /M/201 8 (A.YS.) : 2009 - 10 & 2010 - 11 10 ACCORDINGLY, THE PRES ENT APPEAL IS ALSO BEING HEREBY DISMISSED ON SIMILAR LINES . 8 . IN RESULT, APPEAL S FILED BY THE ASSESSEE ARE HEREBY ORDERED TO BE DISMISSED . ORDER P RONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 2 3 /05/ 2019 SD/ - SD/ - ( M. BALAGANESH ) (AMARJIT SINGH) / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER /JUDICIAL MEMBER MUMBAI; DATED : 2 3 /05/ 2019 V IJA Y / COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. / THE APPELLANT 2. / THE RESPONDENT. 3. ( ) / THE CIT(A) - 4. / CIT 5. , , / DR, ITAT, MUMBAI 6. / GUARD FILE. / BY ORDER, //TRUE COPY// / (DY./ASSTT.REGISTRAR) , / ITAT, MUMBAI