Syed Mubarak Ali, CHENNAI V. ACIT, CHENNAI

ITA 309/CHNY/2017

• Counselvise Citation: [2018] 125 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 1061 (ITAT-CHENNAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 7 month(s) 8 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 12-09-2018
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Assessment Year: 2009-2010
• Appeal Filed On: 03-02-2017
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: MARUDHU
• Assessee Lawyers: L NATARAJAN
• Keywords: Income from undisclosed sources; Rectification of order; Accommodation entries

Judgement Text

, , IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, A BENCH : CHENNAI . , ! ' # ' $ . %& , ( * + [BEFORE SHRI ABRAHAM P. GEORGE, ACCOUNTANT MEMBE R AND SHRI DUVVURU RL REDDY , JUDICIAL MEMBER ] ./I.T.A. NOS.309, 310 & 311/CHNY/2017. / ASSESSMENT YEARS : 2009-10, 2010-11 & 2011-2 012. MR. SYED MUBARAK ALI, NO.5, NEW STREET, NUNGAMBAKKAM, CHENNAI 600 034. VS. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, NON CORPORATE CIRCLE 3, CHENNAI. [PAN ALQPS 2781M] ( ,- / APPELLANT) ( ./,- /RESPONDENT) / APPELLANT BY : SHRI. L. NATARAJAN, C.A. & SHRI. QUADIR HOSEYN, ADVOCATE /RESPONDENT BY : SHRI. MARUDHU PANDIAN, ADDL. CIT. /DATE OF HEARING : 10-09-2018 ! /DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 12-09-2018 0 / O R D E R PER ABRAHAM P. GEORGE, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER THESE ARE APPEALS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE DIRECT ED AGAINST AN ORDERS DATED 26.10.2016 AND 24.10.2016 OF LD. COMM ISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS)-4, CHENNAI. 2. GROUNDS TAKEN BY THE ASSESSEE FOR THE ABOVE YEARS A SSAILS ADDITION MADE FOR PURCHASES WHICH WERE CONSIDERED B Y THE LD. ASSESSING ITA NOS. 309 TO 311 /2017 :- 2 -: OFFICER AS BOGUS, BASED ON CERTAIN INFORMATION RECE IVED FROM MAHARASHTRA VAT DEPARTMENT, APART FROM A CHALLENGE TO THE REOP ENING DONE FOR THE IMPUGNED ASSESSMENT YEARS. 3. FACTS APROPOS ARE THAT ASSESSEE RUNNING A PROPRIET ORSHIP CONCERN CALLED M/S. BHARATH TRADING COMPANY IN PLASTIC GRANULES, HAD FILED RETURNS FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2009-2010 DECLAR ING INCOME OF F17,00,060/-, FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2010-2011 DECLARI NG INCOME OF F25,83,966/- AND FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2011-12 DECLA RING INCOME OF F15,48,695/-. THESE RETURNS WERE ORIGINALLY PROCE SSED U/S.143(1) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 (IN SHORT THE ACT). HOWEV ER, THEREAFTER THE ASSESSMENTS FOR THE IMPUGNED ASSESSMENT YEARS WERE REOPENED CITING A REASON THAT SOME OF THE PURCHASES CLAIMED BY THE AS SESSEE WERE BOGUS. THOUGH THE ASSESSEE OBJECTED TO THE REOPENING, IT SEEMS SUCH OBJECTIONS WERE REJECTED. LD. ASSESSING OFFICER BASED ON A RE PORT FORWARDED BY DGIT (INVESTIGATION, MUMBAI) WHICH IN TURN HAD ITS MOO RINGS ON CERTAIN DETAILS OBTAINED FROM MAHARASHTRA VAT DEPARTMENT, REQUIRED THE ASSESSEE TO EXPLAIN WHY THE FOLLOWING PURCHASES CLAIMED BY IT SHOULD NOT BE CONSIDERED BOGUS. ITA NOS. 309 TO 311 /2017 :- 3 -: SL. NO HAWALA NAME HAWALA TIN HAWALA PAN PARTICULARS OF TRANSACTIONS 08-09 AMOUNT 09-10 AMOUNT 10-11 AMOUNT 1 NAMAN ENTERPRISES 27450524228V AQEPK5024G 20,24,880 2 KRISH CORPORATION 27890606533V AWAPS3678L 21,72,560 3 SAGAR ENTERPRISES 27920363580V ACTPS9740C 27,67,908 4 K C ENTERPRISES 27220658554V AJWPD9140R 77,48,341 5 R K ENTERPRISES 27980667157V AGVPS7835C 30,23,020 6 GLOBAL TRADE IMPEX 27400628967V AMRPB2286L 21,03,140 7 SHREE ENTERPRISES 27760618778V AARPU1851E 29,08,360 8 HITEN ENTERPRISES 27880265244V AABPP2740H 13,89,232 9 SHUBBAM ENTERPRISES 27790690881V AJAPM6393F 55,30,714 10 AMEE ENTERPRISES 27270692331V AZPPP4568E 3,55,01, 784 37,16,265 11 NIRMAL TRADING CO 27740692331V AAJHM4684H 39,70,148 40,54,260 12 RAJSHREE ENTERPRISES 27360671572V AQGPB7825G 55,51,962 33,95,920 13 R K ENTERPRISES 27980667157V AGVPS7835C 36,71,200 14 DARSHAT TRADING PVT. LTD 27020712790V AADCC1270D 1,28,18,400 TOTAL 69,65,348 6,77,26,701 2,76,56,045 ASSESSEE THEREUPON SUBMITTED THESE BILLS FOR THE PU RCHASES. HOWEVER, IT SEEMS ASSESSEES COULD NOT FURNISH THE DETAILS ON TH E TRANSPORTATION OF THE GOODS. LD. ASSESSING OFFICER THEREUPON ISSUED NOTIC ES U/S.133(6) OF THE ACT TO THE ABOVE PARTIES, BUT ALL SUCH NOTICES WERE RETURNED UNSERVED. LD. ITA NOS. 309 TO 311 /2017 :- 4 -: ASSESSING OFFICER CAME TO A CONCLUSION THAT THE ABO VE PURCHASES WERE BOGUS AND COMPLETED THE ASSESSMENT FOR THE IMPUGNED ASSESSMENT YEARS MAKING ADDITIONS OF F69,65,348/-, F6,77,26,701/- AN D F2,76,56,045/- RESPECTIVELY. 4. AGGRIEVED, ASSESSEE MOVED IN APPEAL BEFORE LD. COMM ISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) FOR ALL THE IMPUGNED ASSESSMEN T YEARS. ARGUMENT OF ASSESSEE BEFORE LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APP EALS) WAS THAT THESE PURCHASES WERE ALL GENUINE AND SUPPORTED BY INVOIC ES, DELIVERY CHALLANS AND VAT PAYMENTS. ACCORDING TO THE ASSESSEE, PAYMENTS FOR ALL THESE PURCHASES WERE MADE THOUGH BANKING CHANNELS AND THE GOODS SO PURCHASED WERE SUBSEQUENTLY SOLD. AS PER THE ASSESSEE, THE STOCK WAS PROPERLY ACCOUNTED. CONTENTION OF THE ASSESSEE BEFORE LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) WAS THAT SALES HAVING NOT BEEN DISBELIEVE D OR QUESTIONED, PURCHASES ALONE COULD NOT HAVE BEEN IGNORED. APART FROM THE MERITS OF THE DISALLOWANCES, ASSESSEE ALSO ASSAILED THE REOPENI NG DONE FOR THESE ASSESSMENT YEARS. FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2010-2011, A SSESSEE HAD ONE OTHER GROUND STATING THAT ACTUAL PURCHASE AMOUNT FROM M/S .AMEE ENTERPRISES WAS F35,50,178/- AND NOT F3,55,01,784/-. 5. HOWEVER, LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) W AS NOT FULLY IMPRESSED BY THE ABOVE ARGUMENTS. ACCORDING TO HIM, THE ORIGINAL ITA NOS. 309 TO 311 /2017 :- 5 -: ASSESSMENTS HAVING BEEN DONE U/S.143(1) OF THE ACT, REOPENING DONE FOR THE IMPUGNED ASSESSMENT YEARS WERE IN ACCORDANCE WI TH LAW. ON THE QUESTION OF PURCHASE BEING CONSIDERED BOGUS, CONCLU SION OF THE LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) WAS THAT THES E WERE ONLY ACCOMMODATION ENTRIES. ACCORDING TO HIM, THE FACT OF MAKING PAYMENTS THROUGH ACCOUNT PAYEE CHEQUES, WOULD NOT BE SUFFICI ENT TO CLAIM THE TRANSACTIONS AS GENUINE. LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOM E TAX (APPEALS), WAS OF THE OPINION THAT ASSESSEE COULD NOT PRODUCE NEC ESSARY EVIDENCE FOR SUBSTANTIATING THE PURCHASES. 6. VIS--VIS THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE THAT SALES ALSO SHOULD BE REDUCED IF PURCHASES WERE DISBELIEVED, LD. COMMISS IONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) WAS OF THE OPINION THAT ASSESSEE WAS ACCO UNTING ITS UNACCOUNTED MONEY AS SALES AND SUCH CLAIM COULD NO T BE ENTERTAINED. LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) RELIED ON THE JUDGMENT OF HONBLE GUJARAT HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. SIMIT P. SHETH (2013) 356 ITR 451 AND THAT OF HONBLE APEX COURT IN THE CASE OF MC DOWELL AND CO. LTD VS. COMMERCIAL TAX OFFICER, 154 ITR 148 , WHILE CONFIRMING THE DISALLOWANCES MADE FOR ALL THE IMPUGNED ASSESSMENT YEARS. NEVERTHELESS, FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2010-11, LD. COMMISSIONER OF IN COME TAX (APPEALS) DIRECTED THE LD. ASSESSING OFFICER TO VERIFY THE CL AIM OF THE ASSESSEE THAT ITA NOS. 309 TO 311 /2017 :- 6 -: PURCHASE FROM M/S.AMEE ENTERPRISES WAS ERRONEOUSLY CONSIDERED AS F3,55,01,784/- AGAINST THE ACTUAL FIGURE OF F35,50, 178/-. 7. NOW BEFORE US, LD. AUTHORISED REPRESENTATIVE STRONG LY ASSAILING THE ORDERS OF THE LOWER AUTHORITIES SUBMITTED THAT ASSESSEE HAD EFFECTED PAYMENTS FOR THESE PURCHASES ONLY THROUGH BANK. AC CORDING TO THE LD. AUTHORISED REPRESENTATIVE, ALL THE VENDORS HAD VAT REGISTRATION AND THE AUDIT REPORT ISSUED U/S.61 OF THE MAHARASHTRA VALUE ADDED TAX ACT, 2002 CLEARLY INDICATED THIS POSITION. RELYING ON PAPER BOOK PAGES NO.115 TO 133, LD. AUTHORISED REPRESENTATIVE SUBMITTED THAT T AX AUDIT REPORT IN FORM 3CD, CLEARLY GAVE THE STOCK PARTICULARS. ACCORDIN G TO HIM, IF PURCHASES WERE DISBELIEVED ASSESSEES SALES SHOULD ALSO BE RE DUCED CORRESPONDINGLY. AS PER THE LD. AUTHORISED REPRESENTATIVE, THE PURC HASES WERE GENUINE. RELYING ON A DECISION OF MUMBAI TRIBUNAL IN THE CAS E OF M/S. IMPERIAL IMP & EXP VS. ITO (2016) 46 CCH 0358 , LD. AUTHORISED REPRESENTATIVE SUBMITTED THAT WHEN SALES WERE ACCEPTED, PURCHASES COULD NOT HAVE BEEN REJECTED. RELIANCE WAS ALSO PLACED ON THE JUDGMENT OF HONBLE BOMBAY HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. NIKUNJ EXIMP ENTERPRISES PVT. LTD, (2015) 372 ITR 619 . LD. AUTHORISED REPRESENTATIVE ALSO SUBMITTED THAT LD. ASSESSING OFFICER HAD PASSED A RECTIFICATION ORDER FOR A.Y. 2010-2011, REDUCING THE DISALLOWANCE TO F3,57,75,095/- FROM TH E ORIGINAL AMOUNT OF ITA NOS. 309 TO 311 /2017 :- 7 -: F6,77,26,701/-, CONSIDERING THE ERROR IN THE PURCHA SE FROM M/S.AMEE ENTERPRISES. 8. PER CONTRA, LD. DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE STRONG LY SUPPORTING THE ORDERS OF THE LOWER AUTHORITIES SUBMITTED THAT ASSESSEE MISERABLY FAILED TO PROVIDE ANY RECORDS FOR PURCHASE OF PLAST IC GRANULES. ACCORDING TO HIM, THERE WERE NO DETAILS ABOUT THE GOODS PURC HASED AND MODE OF TRANSPORTATION. NOTICES U/S.133(6) OF THE ACT WERE ALL RETURNED UNSERVED. THUS, ACCORDING TO HIM, PURCHASES WERE BOGUS. AS PER THE LD. DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE, ASSESSEE WAS BRINGIN G IN HIS UNACCOUNTED MONEY AS SALES AND THE DISALLOWANCES WERE THEREFORE JUSTIFIED. 9. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS AND PERUSE D THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW. IT IS NOT DISPUTE D THAT ASSESSEE HAD PRODUCED BILLS FOR PURCHASES. HOWEVER, THESE PURC HASES WERE DISBELIEVED 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 EVI DENCE TO PROVE THE PURCHASES. NEVERTHELESS WHAT WE FIND FROM THE ASSE SSMENT ORDERS FOR THE IMPUGNED ASSESSMENT YEARS IS THAT LD. ASSESSING OFF ICER HAD NOT FOUND ANY DEFECTS IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS PRODUCED BY T HE ASSESSEE, NOR REJECTED IT. ASSESSMENTS WERE COMPLETED U/S.143(3 ) OF THE ACT AFTER VERIFYING THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS PRODUCED BY THE ASS ESSEE. IN THE TAX ITA NOS. 309 TO 311 /2017 :- 8 -: 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) (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 ITA NOS. 309 TO 311 /2017 :- 9 -: 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 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 REP RESENTATIVE, THE SALES MADE BY THE ASSESSEE WERE NEVER DISBELIEVED. IN OU R OPINION, ASSESSEE COULD NOT HAVE EFFECTED THE SALES WITHOUT CORRESPO NDING PURCHASES. IF THE REVENUE DISBELIEVED THE PURCHASES THE CORRESPON DING QUANTITY OUGHT HAVE BEEN REDUCED FROM THE SALES ALSO. IN OUR OP INION, THE LD. ASSESSING OFFICER FELL IN ERROR IN DISBELIEVING THE PURCHAS ES WHILE ACCEPTING THE QUANTITY OF PLASTIC GRANULES SOLD BY THE ASSESSEE, THAT TOO WITHOUT REJECTING THE BOOKS OF THE ASSESSEE. IT IS NOT DISP UTED THAT ASSESSEE HAD ITA NOS. 309 TO 311 /2017 :- 10 -: PRODUCED THE BILLS FOR ALL PURCHASES AND THESE WERE PAID THROUGH BANKING CHANNEL. JUST BECAUSE THE NOTICES TO VENDORS OF THE ASSESSEE CAME BACK UNSERVD, THE PURCHASES COULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISBELIE VED. A BUSINESSMAN WHO PURCHASES GOODS IN THE NORMAL COURSE OF HIS BU SINESS IS NOT EXPECTED TO KEEP A TRACK OF THE ADDRESS OF ALL THE VENDORS WHO SUPPLIED GOODS TO HIM. THERE IS NOTHING ON RECORD TO SUBSTANTIATE TH E INFERENCE DRAWN BY THE LOWER AUTHORITIES THAT PART OF THE SALES ACCOUN TED BY THE ASSESSEE WAS ONLY TO BRING IN HIS UNACCOUNTED INCOME TO THE MA IN STREAM. THE EXISTENCE OF UNACCOUNTED INCOME WAS NOT EVIDENCED BY ANY RECORD. IN A SIMILAR SITUATION WHERE A PART OF THE PURCHASES WE RE DISBELIEVED, THE MUMBAI BENCH OF THE TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF M/S. IMPERIAL IMP & EXP (SUPRA) HAD HELD AS UNDER AT PARA 5 & 6 OF ITS ORDERS . 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 ENQUIRIES CONDUCTED BY THE SALES TAX DEPARTMENT OF THE GOVERNMENT OF MAHARASHT RA AND NO EFFORT HAS BEEN MADE BY THE ASSESSEE 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.13,67,6 40/-; SUBHLAXMI SALES CORP. - RS.20,20,800/-; DHARSHAN SALES CORPOR ATION - RS.9,64,656/-; AND PARAS (INDIA)- RS.33,98,400, TOT ALLING TO RS.77,51,496/- HAVE BEEN TREATED TO BE BOGUS BASED ON THE PURPORTED ENQUIRIES CONDUCTED BY THE SALES TAX DEPARTMENT OF THE GOVERNMENT OF MAHARASHTRA. OSTENSIBLY, THE ASSESSING OFFICER O UGHT TO HAVE BROUGHT ON RECORD MATERIAL WHICH IS RELEVANT TO THE TRANSACTIONS OF THE ASSESSEE WITH THE AFORESAID FOUR PARTIES INSTEA D OF MAKING A GENERAL OBSERVATION ABOUT THE INFORMATION RECEIVED FROM THE SALES ITA NOS. 309 TO 311 /2017 :- 11 -: TAX DEPARTMENT OF THE GOVERNMENT OF MAHARASHTRA. QU ITE CLEARLY, THE ASSESSING OFFICER AS WELL AS CIT(APPEALS) HAVE TAKEN NOTE OF THE FACT THAT NO SALES COULD HAVE BEEN EFFECTED BY THE ASSESSEE WITHOUT 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 PURCHASES BY ACCOUNT PAYEE CHEQUES AND ALSO THE VOUCHERS FOR SALE AND PU RCHASE OF GOODS, ETC. NOTABLY, NO INDEPENDENT ENQUIRIES HAVE BEEN CO NDUCTED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. UNDER IDENTICAL CIRCUMSTANCES, O UR CO-ORDINATE BENCHES IN THE CASES OF DEEPAK POPATWALA GAL (SUPRA ), SHRI RAJEEV G. KALATHIL(SUPRA)AND RAMESH KUMAR AND CO.(SUPRA) H AVE HELD THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER WAS NOT JUSTIFIED IN MAKING A DDITIONS MERELY ON THE BASIS OF INFORMATION OBTAINED FROM THE SALES TA X DEPARTMENT OF THE GOVERNMENT OF MAHARASHTRA WITHOUT CONDUCTING AN Y INDEPENDENT ENQUIRIES. BEFORE THE CIT(APPEALS), ONE OF THE POIN TS RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE WAS WITH RESPECT TO AN OPPORTUNITY TO CROS S EXAMINE THE FOUR PARTIES, BUT WE FIND THAT NO SUCH OPPORTUNITY HAVE BEEN ALLOWED. CONSIDERING THE ENTIRETY OF FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND THE AFORESAID PRECEDENTS, WHICH HAVE BEEN RENDERED UNDER IDENTICAL CIRCUMSTANCES, IN OUR VIEW, THE CIT(APPEALS) ERRED IN SUSTAINING THE ADDITION TO THE EXTENT OF RS.4,19,356/- INSTEAD OF DELETING THE ENTIRE ADDITION OF RS.9,68,937/- MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFF ICER. WE DIRECT ACCORDINGLY . CONSIDERING THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE , WE ARE OF THE OPINION THAT PURCHASES COULD NOT HAVE BEEN CONSIDE RED AS BOGUS. DISALLOWANCES MADE FOR THE IMPUGNED ASSESSMENT YEAR S STAND DELETED. RELATED GROUNDS ARE ALLOWED. 10. LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE DID NOT PRESS ANY OF T HE GROUNDS ASSAILING THE REOPENING. RELATED GROUNDS ARE DISMIS SED AS NOT PRESSED. ITA NOS. 309 TO 311 /2017 :- 12 -: 11. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEALS OF THE ASSESSEE FOR ALL THE YEARS ARE PARTLY ALLOWED. ORDER PRONOUNCED ON WEDNESDAY, THE 12TH DAY OF SEP TEMBER, 2018, AT CHENNAI. SD/- SD/- ( ' # ' $ . %& ) ( DUVVURU RL REDDY ) ( / JUDICIAL MEMBER ( . ) (ABRAHAM P. GEORGE) / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER '# / CHENNAI $% / DATED:12TH SEPTEMBER, 2018. KV %& '()( / COPY TO: 1 . / APPELLANT 3. *+, / CIT(A) 5. (-. / / DR 2. / RESPONDENT 4. * / CIT 6. .01 / GF