SV.P.N.S.N.Balasivaji Nadar & Sons, Virudhunagar V. ITO Ward 4, Virudhunagar

ITA 2276/CHNY/2018

• Counselvise Citation: [2019] 116 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 6786 (ITAT-CHENNAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 11 month(s) 9 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 12-07-2019
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: D
• Assessment Year: 2009-2010
• Appeal Filed On: 02-08-2018
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: M SUBASHRI JCITD R
• Assessee Lawyers: A S SRIRAMAN
• Keywords: Bogus purchase; Income from undisclosed sources; Accommodation entries

Judgement Text

, SMC , IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL D SMC BENCH : CHENNAI , BEFORE SHRI GEORGE MATHAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER ./ I.T.A.NOS.2276, 2277, 2278 /CHNY/2018 / ASSESSMENT YEARS : 2009-10,2010-11 & 2011-12 M/S.S.V.P.N.S.N.BALASIVAJI NADAR & SONS , 140,DR.AMBEDKAR STREET, VIRUDHUNAGAR 626 001. VS. THE INCOME - TAX OFFICER, WARD -4, VIRDHUNAGAR. [PAN AAJF S 1575 R ] ( / APPELLANT) ( /RESPONDENT) / APPELLANT BY : SHRI A.S.SRIRAMAN,ADVOCATE /RESPONDENT BY : SMT.M.SUBASHRI ,JCIT,D.R ' / DATE OF HEARING : 11 - 07 - 201 9 ' / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 12 - 07 - 201 9 / O R D E R THESE APPEALS ARE FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AGAINST THE CONSOLIDATED ORDER OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-T AX (APPEALS)- 1,MADURAI IN APPEAL NOS.0046,0047 & 0048/2015-16 DATED 12.06.2018 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEARS 2009-10 TO 2011 -12. ITA NOS.2276 TO 2278/CHNY/2018 :- 2 -: 2. SHRI A.S.SRIRAMAN REPRESENTED ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE AND SMT M.SUBASHRI REPRESENTED ON BEHALF OF THE REVENUE. 3. IT WAS SUBMITTED BY THE LD.AR THAT IN THE COURS E OF ASSESSMENT, THE LD.ASSESSING OFFICER HAD DISALLOWED THE ENTIRE PURCHASES MADE BY THE ASSESSEE FROM THE PERSONS MENTIONED IN THE CHAR T IN PAGE-2 OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER (A.Y 2009-10). IT WAS A SUBMISSIO N THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAD RECEIVED CERTAIN INFORMATION FROM THE SALES TAX DEPARTMENT(VAT), INVESTIGATION DIVISION, MUMBAI, MA HARASTRA WHEREIN THE PROPRIETORS OF THOSE COMPANIES HAD SPECIFICALLY CONFIRMED THAT THEY WERE PROVIDING ACCOUNTING ENTRIES AND THE TRANSACTI ONS IN THEIR NAMES WERE BOGUS. IT WAS SUBMITTED BY LD.AR THAT THE ASSE SSEE DOES NOT HAVE EVIDENCE TO PROVE THAT THE TRANSACTIONS SPECIF ICALLY ON ACCOUNT OF FACT THAT THE BUSINESS OF THE SELLERS HAVE CLOSED. IT WAS A SUBMISSION THAT THE PURCHASES HAVE ALSO BEEN INCLUDED IN THE S TOCK AND THE SAME HAVE ALSO BEEN SOLD AND IF AT ALL WHAT IS DISALLOWA BLE WAS ONLY THE GROSS PROFIT IN RESPECT TO THE TRANSACTIONS. IT WAS A FURTHER SUBMISSION THAT IN FACT, NO ADDITION WAS LIABLE TO BE MADE IN VIEW OF THE DECISION OF THE CO-ORDINATE BENCH OF THIS TRIBUNAL IN THE CA SE OF M/S.VBC JEWELLERY VS. THE DCIT, IN ITA NOS.653,654, 1464 & 1465/CHNY/2017 DATED 24.10.2018 WHEREIN IT HAD BEEN HELD AS FOLLOW S:- ITA NOS.2276 TO 2278/CHNY/2018 :- 3 -: 10. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS AND PERUSED THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW. PURCHASES MADE B Y THE ASSESSEES, FROM M/S. MOHIT ENTERPRISES, M/S. MAAN DIAMONDS, M/S.RAJAN DIAMONDS AND M/S. MARVIN ENTERPRISES WERE CONSIDERED AS BOGUS, BASED ON INVESTIGATION DONE BY THE DEPARTMENT ON A GROUP HEADED BY ONE SHRI. BHANWARLA L JAIN PURSUANT TO A SEARCH CONDUCTED IN THEIR PREMISES O N 03.10.2014. WHAT WE FIND IS THAT REVENUE HAD RELIED ON OATH ST ATEMENTS TAKEN FROM NUMBER OF PERSONS CONNECTED TO THE CONCE RNS RUN BY SHRI. BHANWARLAL JAIN FOR COMING TO A CONCLUSION TH AT THE CONCERNS RUN BY SHRI. BHANWARLAL JAIN AND FAMILY, W ERE PROVIDING ACCOMMODATION ENTRIES IN THE NATURE OF BOGUS PURCHA SES. WE ALSO FIND THAT THESE STATEMENTS AND THE INVESTIGATI ON REPORTS RELIED ON BY THE LD. ASSESSING OFFICER, WERE NEVER PUT TO THE ASSESSEES, DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEED INGS. LD. ASSESSING OFFICER HAD RELIED ON SUCH STATEMENTS AN D REPORTS FOR RESORTING TO A BEST OF JUDGMENT ASSESSMENT AND MAD E AN ADDITION OF 25%, OF WHAT WAS CONSIDERED BY HIM AS B OGUS PURCHASES. IT IS NOT DISPUTED THAT ASSESSEES HAD PRODUCED INVOICES FROM THE CONCERNED VENDORS AND SAID INVO ICES CARRIED TIN AS WELL AS GST DETAILS OF THE VENDORS. IT IS A LSO NOT DISPUTED THAT THE RECEIPT OF THE MATERIAL WERE PROPERLY RECO RDED BY THE ASSESSEES IN THEIR STOCK REGISTERS. THE SALES EFFEC TED BY THE ASSESSEES WAS NEVER DISBELIEVED. WHEN THE SALES ARE ACCEPTED, WE CANNOT SAY THAT THERE WERE NO CORRESPONDING PURC HASES. NEVERTHELESS, IT IS TRUE THAT ASSESSEE DESPITE CLA IMING THE PURCHASES TO HAVE BEEN EFFECTED THROUGH SOME INTERM EDIARIES, WERE UNABLE TO PRODUCE THE INTERMEDIARIES OR FILE CONFIRMATIONS FROM THEM. HENCE, WE CANNOT SAY THAT ASSESSEE HAD MADE ALL NECESSARY EFFORTS FOR PROVING THE PURCHASES CLAIME D TO HAVE BEEN MADE FROM THE PARTIES MENTIONED IN THE TABLE ABOVE, BEYOND PREPONDERANCE OF PROBABILITY. A SIMILAR CASE , WHERE AN ITA NOS.2276 TO 2278/CHNY/2018 :- 4 -: ADDITION WAS MADE DISBELIEVING PURCHASES, BASED ON SEARCH OPERATIONS CONDUCTED IN M/S. BHANWARLAL JAIN GROUP, HAD COME UP BEFORE THE MUMBAI BENCH OF THE TRIBUNAL IN ITA NOS.3707 & 3761/MUM/2016, DATED 11.12.2017). WHAT WAS HELD BY THE MUMBAI BENCH AT PARAS 9 & 10 ARE REPRODUCED HEREUND ER:- 9. WE HAVE HEARD BOTH THE COUNSEL AND PERUSED THE RECORD. AS REGARDS THE REOPENING, WE FIND THE COMMI SSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) HAS PASSED AN APPOSITE ORDE R. THE REOPENING HAS BEEN DONE ON THE BASIS OF COGENT INFO RMATION REGARDING THE ASSESSEE DEALING WITH HAWALA OPERATOR S. THE CASE LAWS REFERRED BY THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TA X (APPEALS) ARE GERMANE AND SUPPORT THE VALIDITY OF R EOPENING IN THIS CASE. 10. AS REGARDS THE MERITS OF THE CASE, FACTS OF TH E CASE INDICATE THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS ENGAGED INTO OBTAINI NG BOGUS PURCHASE BILLS. SINCE, SALES HAVE NOT BEEN DO UBTED; ENTIRE DISALLOWANCE OF PURCHASE IS NOT SUSTAINABLE IN LIGHT OF HON'BLE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT DECISION IN THE CASE OF NIKUNJ ENTERPRISES. WE FURTHER NOTE THAT THE ASSESS ING OFFICER HAS ALSO HIMSELF NOT DONE ANY INVESTIGATION AND ENQUIRY. THE ASSESSEE'S REQUEST FOR CROSS EXAMINATI ON HAS NOT BEEN ENTERTAINED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. IN THESE CIRCUMSTANCES, 6% DISALLOWANCE OF BOGUS PURCHASE SUSTAINED BY THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEAL S) IS APPROPRIATE AND DOES NOT NEED ANY INTERFERENCE ON O UR PART. BOTH THE ID. COUNSEL ALSO FAIRLY AGREED TO THIS PRO POSITION . ASSESSEES HAVE ALSO SUBMITTED THAT ITS GROSS PROFIT INCLUDING THAT OF PURCHASES CONSIDERED BY THE LOWER AUTHORITIES AS BOGUS, CAME TO 8.91% TO 20.88% FOR THE IMPUGNED ASSESSMENT YEAR S. EVEN IF WE ACCEPT THE CONTENTION OF THE REVENUE THAT 25 % MARK UP WAS JUSTIFIED BASED ON THE JUDGMENT OF GUJARAT HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF SANJAY OIL CAKE INDUSTRIES (SUPRA), WHAT CO ULD AT THE BEST BE ADDED IS ONLY THE SHORTFALL BETWEEN DECLAR ED GROSS PROFIT AND THE ESTIMATED GROSS PROFIT OF 25%, AND SUCH SHO RTFALL FELL WITHIN THE RANGE OF 5 TO 6%. IN SUCH CIRCUMSTANCES, IN ORDER TO GIVE A QUIETUS TO THE MATTER, WE ARE INCLINED TO F OLLOW THE ITA NOS.2276 TO 2278/CHNY/2018 :- 5 -: DECISION OF MUMBAI BENCH IN THE CASE OF M/S. RALF J EMS PVT. LTD (SUPRA). ADDITION THAT ARE TO BE MADE IS FIXED A T 6%, OF WHAT IS CONSIDERED AS VALUE OF THE ALLEGED BOGUS PURCHASES AND NOTHING MORE. WE DIRECT THE LD. ASSESSING OFFICER TO RECAL CULATE THE ADDITION ACCORDINGLY. IT WAS ALSO SUBMITTED THAT UNDER IDENTICAL CIRCUMST ANCES IN THE CASE OF MR.SYED MUBARAK ALI VS. THE ACIT IN ITA NO.309 TO 3 11/CHNY/2019 FOR ASSESSMENT YEARS 2009-10 TO 2011-12 DATED 12.09.201 8 WHEREIN THE CO-ORDINATE BENCH HAD HELD AS FOLLOWS:- 10.WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS AND P ERUSED THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW. IT IS NOT DISPUTED THAT ASS ESSEE HAD PRODUCED BILLS FOR PURCHASES. HOWEVER, THESE PURCHASES WERE DISB ELIEVED FOR A REASON THAT NOTICES ISSUED U/S.133(6) OF THE ACT TO THESE PARTIES WERE RETURNED UNSERVED. LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) ALSO STATES THAT ASSESSEE HAD FAILED TO BRING IN SUFFICIENT EVIDENCE TO PROVE THE PURCHASES. NEVERTHELESS WHAT WE FIND FROM THE ASSE SSMENT ORDERS FOR THE IMPUGNED ASSESSMENT YEARS IS THAT LD. ASSESSING OFFICER HAD NOT FOUND ANY DEFECTS IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS PRODUCE D BY THE ASSESSEE, NOR REJECTED IT. ASSESSMENTS WERE COMPLETED U/S.1 43(3) OF THE ACT AFTER VERIFYING THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS PRODUCED BY THE ASS ESSEE. IN THE TAX AUDIT REPORT FOR THE IMPUGNED ASSESSMENT YEARS FIL ED BY THE ASSESSEE IN FORM 3CD, QUANTITATIVE DETAILS HAVE BEEN GIVEN AT S L. NO. 28(A) AS UNDER:- ASSESSMENT YEAR 2009-10 : (A) IN THE CASE OF A TRADING CONCERN, GIVE QUANTITATIVE DETAILS OF PRINCIPAL ITEMS OF GOODS TRADED PLASTIC GRANULES & OIL (QTY IN KG) ITA NOS.2276 TO 2278/CHNY/2018 :- 6 -: (I) OPENING STOCK : 113370.000 (II) PURCHASES DURING THE PREVIOUS YEAR : 4967237.000 (III) SALES DURING THE PREVIOUS YEAR : 4609134.000 (IV) CLOSING STOCK : 471473.000 (V) SHORTAGE/EXCESS, IF ANY : 0.000 ASSESSMENT YEAR 2010-11 : (A) IN THE CASE OF A TRADING CONCERN, GIVE QUANTITATIVE DETAILS OF PRINCIPAL ITEMS OF GOODS TRADED PLASTIC GRANULES & OIL (QTY IN KG) (I) OPENING STOCK : 471473.000 (II) PURCHASES DURING THE PREVIOUS YEAR : 2615725.920 (III) SALES DURING THE PREVIOUS YEAR : 2710986.000 (IV) CLOSING STOCK : 376212.920 (V) SHORTAGE/EXCESS, IF ANY : 0.000 ASSESSMENT YEAR 2011-12:- (A) IN THE CASE OF A TRADING CONCERN, GIVE QUANTITATIVE DETAILS OF PRINCIPAL ITEMS OF GOODS TRADED PLASTIC GRANULES & OIL (QTY IN KG) (I) OPENING STOCK : 376212.920 3(II) PURCHASES DURING THE PREVIOUS ITA NOS.2276 TO 2278/CHNY/2018 :- 7 -: YEAR : 1972992.000 (III) SALES DURING THE PREVIOUS YEAR : 1983006.000 (IV) CLOSING STOCK : 366198.920 (V) SHORTAGE/EXCESS, IF ANY : 0.000 THE ABOVE QUANTITY PARTICULARS WERE NOT FOUND TO BE INCORRECT BY LD. ASSESSING OFFICER. IT IS CLEAR FROM THE ABOVE, THAT ASSESSEE HAD MAINTAINED RECORDS WHICH GAVE THE QUANTITY OF GRANULES IN STO CK , ITS PURCHASES AND ITS SALES. AS MENTIONED BY THE LD. AUTHORISED REPRESE NTATIVE, THE SALES MADE BY THE ASSESSEE WERE NEVER DISBELIEVED. IN OUR OPI NION, ASSESSEE COULD NOT HAVE EFFECTED THE SALES WITHOUT CORRESPONDING PUR CHASES. IF THE REVENUE DISBELIEVED THE PURCHASES THE CORRESPONDING QUANTIT Y OUGHT HAVE BEEN REDUCED FROM THE SALES ALSO. IN OUR OPINION, THE LD. ASSESSING OFFICER FELL IN ERROR IN DISBELIEVING THE PURCHASES WHILE ACCEP TING THE QUANTITY OF PLASTIC GRANULES SOLD BY THE ASSESSEE, THAT TOO WITHOUT RE JECTING THE BOOKS OF THE ASSESSEE. IT IS NOT DISPUTED THAT ASSESSEE HAD PROD UCED THE BILLS FOR ALL PURCHASES AND THESE WERE PAID THROUGH BANKING CHANN EL. JUST BECAUSE THE NOTICES TO VENDORS OF THE ASSESSEE CAME BACK UNSERV D, THE PURCHASES COULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISBELIEVED. A BUSINESSMAN WHO PURCHA SES GOODS IN THE NORMAL COURSE OF HIS BUSINESS IS NOT EXPECTED TO K EEP A TRACK OF THE ADDRESS OF ALL THE VENDORS WHO SUPPLIED GOODS TO HIM. THE RE IS NOTHING ON RECORD TO SUBSTANTIATE THE INFERENCE DRAWN BY THE LOWER AUTHO RITIES THAT PART OF THE SALES ACCOUNTED BY THE ASSESSEE WAS ONLY TO BRING IN HIS UNACCOUNTED INCOME TO THE MAIN STREAM. THE EXISTENCE OF UNACCOU NTED INCOME WAS NOT EVIDENCED BY ANY RECORD. IN A SIMILAR SITUATION W HERE A PART OF THE PURCHASES WERE DISBELIEVED, THE MUMBAI BENCH OF THE TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF M/S. IMPERIAL IMP & EXP (SUPRA) HAD HELD AS UNDER A T PARA 5 & 6 OF ITS ORDERS. ITA NOS.2276 TO 2278/CHNY/2018 :- 8 -: 5. ON THE OTHER HAND, THE LD. DEPARTMENTAL REPRES ENTATIVE SUPPORTED THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW BY PO INTING OUT THAT THE ADDITION HAS BEEN MADE ON ACCOUNT OF THE E NQUIRIES CONDUCTED BY THE SALES TAX DEPARTMENT OF THE GOVERN MENT OF MAHARASHTRA AND NO EFFORT HAS BEEN MADE BY THE ASSE SSEE TO CONTROVERT SUCH INFORMATION. 6. WE HAVE CAREFULLY CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIO NS. THE ENTIRE DISCUSSION IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER REVEALS THAT PUR CHASES FROM FOUR PARTIES NAMELY DHRUV SALES CORPORATION - RS.13 ,67,640/-; SUBHLAXMI SALES CORP. - RS.20,20,800/-; DHARSHAN SA LES CORPORATION -RS.9,64,656/-; AND PARAS (INDIA)- RS.3 3,98,400, TOTALLING TO RS.77,51,496/- HAVE BEEN TREATED TO BE BOGUS BASED ON THE PURPORTED ENQUIRIES CONDUCTED BY THE SALES T AX DEPARTMENT OF THE GOVERNMENT OF MAHARASHTRA. OSTENS IBLY, THE ASSESSING OFFICER OUGHT TO HAVE BROUGHT ON RECORD M ATERIAL WHICH IS RELEVANT TO THE TRANSACTIONS OF THE ASSESS EE WITH THE AFORESAID FOUR PARTIES INSTEAD OF MAKING A GENERAL OBSERVATION ABOUT THE INFORMATION RECEIVED FROM THE SALES TAX D EPARTMENT OF THE GOVERNMENT OF MAHARASHTRA. QUITE CLEARLY, THE A SSESSING OFFICER AS WELL AS CIT(APPEALS) HAVE TAKEN NOTE OF THE FACT THAT NO SALES COULD HAVE BEEN EFFECTED BY THE ASSESSEE W ITHOUT PURCHASES. IN THE PRESENT CASE, ASSESSEE HAS EXPLAI NED THAT ALL ITS SALES ARE BY WAY OF EXPORTS. THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT M AINTAINED BY THE ASSESSEE SHOW PAYMENT FOR EFFECTING SUCH PURCHA SES BY ACCOUNT PAYEE CHEQUES AND ALSO THE VOUCHERS FOR SAL E AND PURCHASE OF GOODS, ETC. NOTABLY, NO INDEPENDENT ENQ UIRIES HAVE BEEN CONDUCTED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. UNDER IDEN TICAL CIRCUMSTANCES, OUR CO-ORDINATE BENCHES IN THE CASES OF DEEPAK POPATWALA GAL (SUPRA), SHRI RAJEEV G. KALATHIL(SUPR A)AND RAMESH KUMAR AND CO.(SUPRA) HAVE HELD THAT THE ASSE SSING OFFICER WAS NOT JUSTIFIED IN MAKING ADDITIONS MEREL Y ON THE BASIS OF INFORMATION OBTAINED FROM THE SALES TAX DEPARTME NT OF THE GOVERNMENT OF MAHARASHTRA WITHOUT CONDUCTING ANY INDEPENDENT ENQUIRIES. BEFORE THE CIT(APPEALS), ONE OF THE POINTS RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE WAS WITH RESPECT TO A N OPPORTUNITY TO CROSS EXAMINE THE FOUR PARTIES, BUT WE FIND THAT NO SUCH OPPORTUNITY HAVE BEEN ALLOWED. CONSIDERING THE ENTI RETY OF FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND THE AFORESAID PRE CEDENTS, WHICH HAVE BEEN RENDERED UNDER IDENTICAL CIRCUMSTAN CES, IN OUR VIEW, THE CIT(APPEALS) ERRED IN SUSTAINING THE ADDI TION TO THE EXTENT OF RS.4,19,356/- INSTEAD OF DELETING THE ENT IRE ADDITION OF RS.9,68,937/- MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. WE DIR ECT ACCORDINGLY . ITA NOS.2276 TO 2278/CHNY/2018 :- 9 -: CONSIDERING THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE , WE ARE OF THE OPINION THAT PURCHASES COULD NOT HAVE BEEN CONSIDERED AS B OGUS. DISALLOWANCES MADE FOR THE IMPUGNED ASSESSMENT YEARS STAND DELETE D. RELATED GROUNDS ARE ALLOWED. LD.AR SUBMITTED THAT IN FACT THE ADDITION ITSELF WA S NOT CALLED FOR AND IN THE WORST CASE WHAT COULD BE ADDED WAS ONLY GROS S PROFIT. IT WAS A PRAYER THAT THE ADDITION WAS LIABLE TO BE DELETED. 4. IN REPLY, LD.DR STRONGLY SUPPORTED THE ORDERS O F THE LD.CIT(A) AND THE LD.ASSESSING OFFICER 5. I HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS. A PER USAL OF THE FACTS CLEARLY SHOWS THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS RECEIV ED INFORMATION FROM SALES TAX DEPARTMENT(VAT), INVESTIGATION DIVISION, MUMBAI INTIMATING THAT BOGUS SELLERS HAVING SPECIFIED TIN AND PAN NUM BERS WERE OPERATING. THE TRANSACTIONS IN RESPECT OF THE ASSES SEE HAS ALREADY BEEN CATEGORICALLY IDENTIFIED AND SPECIFIED IN RESP ECT OF THE THREE ASSESSMENT YEARS. THE SAID DOCUMENTS HAD BEEN GIVEN TO THE ASSESSEE FOR HIS REBUTTAL. THE ASSESSEE HAS FAILED TO PROVE THE GENUINENESS OF THE PURCHASERS AFFECTED WITH THE MATERIAL EVIDENCE. IT IS VERY MUCH OPEN TO THE ASSESSEE TO PRODUCE THE CONCERNED PERSO NS, WHO IT HAS DEALT WITH AND TO PROVE ITS CLAIM. ASSESSEE HAS CL EARLY NOT TAKEN THAT OPPORTUNITY TO PROVE THAT THE PURCHASES HAD ADMIT TEDLY BEEN MADE ITA NOS.2276 TO 2278/CHNY/2018 :- 10 -: FROM THE IDENTIFIED FIRMS AND COMPANIES. THE CLAIM OF ASSESSEE THAT THE PURCHASES HAVE GONE INTO THEIR STOCK AND SALES HAVE ALSO BEEN EFFECTED WOULD IN FACT SHOW THAT ALL IS NOT WELL WI TH THE BOOKS OF THE ASSESSEE, MOST SPECIFICALLY STOCK REGISTER. IT COU LD ALSO MEAN THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS DONE SOME UNDISCLOSED PURCHASES, OR UN DISCLOSED SALES, WHICH IT IS ATTEMPTING TO COVER UP BY THE TRANSACTI ONS WITH THE SAID BOGUS ENTRIES. THE ACTUAL PICTURE IS KNOWN ONLY TO THE ASSESSEE. IT IS FOR THE ASSESSEE TO SUBSTANTIATE ITS CLAIM. THE ASS ESSEE ADMITTEDLY HAS FAILED TO PROVE ITS CLAIM BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFI CER AND THE LD.CIT(A). EVEN BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL, THE ASSESSEE IS UNABLE TO PLACE THE FACTS IN ITS ENTIRETY. THIS BEING SO, I FIND NO REASON TO I NTERFERE WITH THE ORDER OF THE LD.CIT(A) ON THIS ISSUES. CONSEQUENTLY, THE APPEALS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE STAND DISMISSED. 6. IN THE RESULT, ALL THE APPEALS FILED BY THE ASS ESSEE ARE DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED ON 12 TH JULY, 2019, AT CHENNAI. SD/- ( ) (GEORGE MATHAN) ! # / JUDICIAL MEMBER & / DATED: 12 TH JULY, 2019 AT / CHENNAI K S SUNDARAM )* +* / COPY TO: 1 . / APPELLANT 3. , () / CIT(A) 5. * 1 / DR 2. / RESPONDENT 4. , / CIT 6. / GF