M/s. Kusam-Meco Import Export Pvt. Ltd., Ahmedabad V. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-4(2), Now Ward-2(1)(2), Ahmedabad

ITA 228/AHD/2016

• Counselvise Citation: [2017] 127 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 8466 (ITAT-AHMEDABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 7 month(s) 11 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 12-09-2017
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: Not Allotted
• Assessment Year: 2009-2010
• Appeal Filed On: 01-02-2016
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: N P PATEL
• Keywords: Accommodation entries
• Section: 143(3)

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AHMEDABAD SMC BENCH AHMEDABAD BEFORE, SHRI S. S. GODARA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI MANISH BORAD, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NOS. 228 TO 230/AHD/2016 (ASSESSMENT YEA RS: 2009-10 TO 2011-12) M/S. KUSAM-MECO IMPORT EXPORT P. LTD., H-2, VIJAY TOWER, KANKARIA, AHMEDABAD -08 APPELLANT VS. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, NEW WARD 2(1)(2) & OLD WARD 4(2), NAVJIVAN BUILDING, AHMEDABAD -14 RESPONDENT PAN: AABCG6718M /BY ASSESSEE : SHRI PIYUSH CHHAJED, A.R. /BY REVENUE : SHRI N. P. PATEL, SR. D.R. /DATE OF HEARING : 07.09.2017 /DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 12.09.2017 ORDER PER S. S. GODARA, JUDICIAL MEMBER THESE THREE ASSESSEES APPEALS FOR ASSESSMENT YEARS 2009-10 TO 2011- 12 ARISE FROM THE CIT(A)-2, AHMEDABADS SEPARATE OR DERS; ALL DATED 27.11.2015, PASSED IN CASES NOS. CIT(A)-2/281/WD.2( 1)(2)/2014-15, CIT(A)- 2/282/WD.2(1)(2)/2014-15 & CIT(A)-2/283/WD.2(1)(2)/ 2014-15 UPHOLDING ASSESSING OFFICERS ACTION IN REOPENING THE CORRESP ONDING ASSESSMENTS THEREBY DISALLOWING ITS ALLEGED INFLATED PURCHASES CLAIMS OF RS.10,26,330/- AS ITA NOS. 228 TO 230/AHD/16 [M/S. KUSAM-MECO IMPORT EXPORT P. LTD. VS. ITO] A.YS. 2009-10 TO 2011-12 - 2 - WELL AS IN HOLDING THAT CORRESPONDING PURCHASES OF RS.10,26,330/-, RS.6,36,553/- & RS.6,23,121/-; RESPECTIVELY ARE ACC OMMODATION/HAWALA BILLS, IN PROCEEDINGS U/S. 143(3) R.W.S. 147 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961; IN SHORT THE ACT. HEARD BOTH THE PARTIES STRONGLY REITERATING THEIR R ESPECTIVE STANDS. CASE FILES PERUSED. 2. LEARNED REPRESENTATIVES APPEARING AT BOTH THE PA RTIES INFORM US AT THE OUTSET THAT THE IMPUGNED LIS EMANATES FROM A VAT SC AM UNEARTHED BY MAHARASHTRA STATE SALES TAX DEPARTMENT WHEREIN IT F OUND IN COURSE OF A DETAILED INVESTIGATION THAT THE ASSESSEE I.E. M/S. KUSAM-MECO IMPORT EXPORT PVT. LTD. IS ONE OF THE BENEFICIARIES OF PURCHASE O F GOODS THROUGH BOGUS BILLING INSTANCES EXCEEDING RS.10LACS. THE ASSESSI NG OFFICER ACCORDINGLY INITIATED THE IMPUGNED REOPENINGS. HE THEREFORE FR AMED CONSEQUENTIAL RE- ASSESSMENTS IN ALL THREE ASSESSMENT YEARS DISALLOWI NG ASSESSEES PURCHASES FROM FOUR ENTITIES M/S. ARYAN SALES CORPORATION, NA MAN ENTERPRISE, OM CORPORATION AND SIDDHI VINAYAK CORPORATION. THE AS SESSING OFFICER FURTHER TREATED THE ABOVE PURCHASES INVOLVING VARYING AMOUN TS TO BE MERE ACCOMMODATION ENTRIES. THE CIT(A) UPHOLDS ASSESSIN G OFFICERS IDENTICAL ACTION ON LEGALITY OF REOPENING AS WELL AS ON MERIT S. 3. WE HAVE GIVEN OUR THOUGHTFUL CONSIDERATION TO RI VAL SUBMISSIONS. A PERUSAL OF THE CASE RECORDS INDICATE THAT THE VERY ISSUE HAD COME UP BEFORE THIS TRIBUNALS CO-ORDINATE BENCH AT MUMBAI IN ASSE SSEES SISTER CONCERNS CASES M/S. KUSAM ELECTRICAL INDUSTRIES LTD. IN ITA NOS. 7056 & 7057/MUM/2016 IN ASSESSMENT YEARS 2009-10 & 2010-11 . THE SAID ORDER DATED 15.05.2017 FORMS PART OF THE CASE FILE AT PAG ES 297 TO 299. LEARNED CO- ORDINATE BENCH THEREIN DIRECTED THE ASSESSING OFFIC ER TO ADD 5% OF SUCH PURCHASES TO COVER UP REVENUE LEAKAGE INVOLVED IN T HE INSTANT CASES. WE ITA NOS. 228 TO 230/AHD/16 [M/S. KUSAM-MECO IMPORT EXPORT P. LTD. VS. ITO] A.YS. 2009-10 TO 2011-12 - 3 - SOUGHT TO KNOW FROM LEARNED AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATI VE AS TO WHETHER THE SAID DECISION INVOLVED THE VERY FOUR SUPPLIERS OR N OT. HE TAKES US TO PAPER BOOK PAGES 293 TO 296 CONTAINING ASSESSMENT ORDER I N ITS SISTER CONCERNS CASE IN ASSESSMENT YEAR 2009-10 DATED 13.03.2015 IN DICATING THE VERY FOUR SUPPLIERS/PURCHASERS. THE REVENUE FAILS TO REBUT A LL THESE CRUCIAL DEVELOPMENTS. NOR DOES IT INDICATE ANY DISTINCTION ON FACTS. WE THEREFORE ADOPT CONSISTENCY IN ALL THE INSTANT THREE APPEALS. THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS DIRECTED TO DISALLOW ONLY 5% OF THE PURCHASES AMOUN T IN QUESTION. HE SHALL PAS CONSEQUENTIAL ASSESSMENT ORDER (S) AFTER AFFORD ING ADEQUATE OPPORTUNITY OF HEARING. 4. THE ASSESSEES INSTANT THREE APPEALS ARE PARTLY ALLOWED IN ABOVE TERMS. [PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON THIS THE 12 TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2017.] SD/- SD/- ( MANISH BORAD ) ( S. S. GODARA) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL M EMBER AHMEDABAD: DATED 12/09/2017 TRUE COPY S.K.SINHA / COPY OF ORDER FORWARDED TO:- / REVENUE 2 / ASSESSEE ! / CONCERNED CIT 4 !- / CIT (A) ( )*+ ,--. . /0 / DR, ITAT, AHMEDABAD 1 +23 45 / GUARD FILE. BY ORDER / . // . /0