M/S C MAHENDRA EXPORTS LIMITED, Mumbai V. DCIT 14(1)(2), Mumbai

ITA 3852/MUM/2019

• Counselvise Citation: [2022] 105 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 6171 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 9 month(s) 23 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 23-03-2022
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: C
• Assessment Year: 2009-2010
• Appeal Filed On: 30-05-2019
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Bogus purchase; Opportunity of being heard; Principle of natural justice; Opportunity of cross examination; Wrong claim; Accommodation entries; Retraction; Set aside
• Section: 68; 69C; 115JB; 10B; 208

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL (VIRTUAL COURT) “C” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI AMARJIT SINGH, HON'BLE JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI S. RIFAUR RAHMAN, HON'BLE ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NOs. 3851 & 3852/MUM/2019 (A.Ys: 2008-09 & 2009-10) M/s. C. Mahendra Exports Ltd., Tower C, Office No. 6011 Bharat Diamond Bourse Bandra Kurla Complex Bandra (E), Mumbai -400051 PAN: AACCC9633L v. DCIT – 14(1)(2) Mumbai (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by : None Department by : Shri Ashok Kumar Kardam Date of Hearing : 24.03.2022 Date of Pronouncement : 24.03.2022 O R D E R PER S. RIFAUR RAHMAN (AM) 1. These appeals are filed by the assessee against different orders of the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-21, Mumbai [hereinafter in short “Ld.CIT(A)”] dated 31.01.2019 and 12.02.2019 for the A.Ys. 2008-09 and 2009-10 respectively. 2 ITA NOs. 3851 & 3852/MUM/2019 M/s. C. Mahendra Exports Ltd., 2. Since the issues raised in both the appeals are identical, therefore, for the sake of convenience, these appeals are clubbed, heard and disposed off by this consolidated order. We are taking ITA.No. 3851/Mum/2019 for Assessment Year 2008-09 as a lead case. 3. Assessee has raised following grounds in its appeal: - “1. a) The Learned CIT (Appeals) - 21 has erred in law and in facts in adding Rs. 42,30,72,132/- being 100% of the amount of alleged bogus purchases made from various parties as income of the Appellant for the year under consideration. b. The Learned CIT (Appeals) - 21 has erred in making the ad hoc additions without rejecting books of accounts. c. The Learned CIT (Appeals) - 21 has failed to appreciate the facts and circumstances of the case and made the additions on assumptions, presumptions and surmise. 2. The learned CIT(A) has erred in law in making an enhancement of the Assessment done by the Assessing Officer by doubting the sales and treating the same as non-genuine without issuing statutory notice upon the Appellant and has therefore violated the principles of Natural Justice by not providing the Appellant with a proper opportunity of being heard 3. The Learned CIT (Appeals) - 21 has also erred in not providing an opportunity to the assessee to cross-examine the purchase parties.” 4. We observed from the record that the hearing was posted since 17.11.2020, none appeared on behalf of the assessee until today except three occasions, a letter was filed for adjournment. The hearing was posted 11 times and none appeared. We deem it fit and proper to proceed 3 ITA NOs. 3851 & 3852/MUM/2019 M/s. C. Mahendra Exports Ltd., to dispose off this appeal as it is pending from 2020. The notice was sent through RPAD to the address given in Form No.36 by the assessee returned unserved with an endorsement “Left” by the postal authorities. Therefore, we decided to dispose off this appeal on merits after hearing the Ld.DR and examining the material on record. 5. Ld. DR briefly explained the facts and supported the orders of the lower authorities. Further, he brought to our notice that this appeal was filed by the ex-director and not by the company. This itself proper reason to dismiss the appeal. 6. Heard Ld. DR and perused the material placed on record, orders of the authorities below. We observe from the record that this appeal was filed by Mr. Mahendra Shah (ex-director) himself representing the assessee. Subsequently, he filed an affidavit explaining the reasons for him to file the appeal. Considered the issues in detail and observed that ex-director is not the authorised person to represent the company. Unless and until a resolution is filed from the company allowing him to represent the company. No such authority is filed before us except Affidavit (by himself). 4 ITA NOs. 3851 & 3852/MUM/2019 M/s. C. Mahendra Exports Ltd., 7. In our considered view, the ex-director cannot represent the company. Further we observe that the notices are returned unserved on several occasions. Hence, the bench decided to proceed to dispose of this appeal on merit also. On perusal of the order of the Ld.CIT(A), we find that the Ld.CIT(A) considered this aspect of the matter elaborately with reference to the submissions of the assessee and the averments in the Assessment Order and sustained the addition made by the Assessing Officer. While holding so, the Ld.CIT(A) observed as under:- “6. I have considered the facts of the case and submissions made by the appellant. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee is a Limited company and engaged in the business of manufacturing, trading and export of cut and polished diamonds. The return of income for the year under appeal was filed on 30.09.2008 declaring total income of Rs Nil under normal provisions of the Act after claiming deduction of Rs 26,63,63,580/- u/s 10B of the Act and book profit of Rs 40,14,87,463/- u/s 115JB of the Act. The AO received information from Investigation Wing that search and seizure operation was carried out in Bhanwarlal Jain group of cases where it was found that Shri Bhanwarlal Jain along with his associates have provided accommodation entries in the form of unsecured loans/deposits/bogus purchases entries to large number of parties through various benami concerns controlled by him. The assessee was alleged to be one of the beneficiaries of accommodation entries to the tune of Rs. 42,30,72,132/- from eight paper concerns operated by Shri Bhanwarlal Jain and group. The case was reopened after obtaining approval from higher authorities. After analysis of the submissions filed by the assessee, the AO completed reassessment proceedings u/s143(3) r.w.s 147 of the Act on 28.03.2016 by disallowing and adding Rs 42,30,72,132/-to the total income of the assessee being non genuine purchases. Aggrieved by the disallowance, the appellant filed appeal relying on various case laws. 6.2 During the course of appellate proceedings, it was submitted by the appellant that the transactions are genuine, and that the appellant has provided all necessary evidences. It has been argued that the genuine purchases were affected through banking channels. 5 ITA NOs. 3851 & 3852/MUM/2019 M/s. C. Mahendra Exports Ltd., However, the report received from the office of DGIT (Investigation) during the course of post search inquiries clearly mention the modus- operandi followed by the group concerns of Bhanwarlal Jam. Even during post search enquiries Shri Bahnwarlal Jain admitted the fact that they were engaged in paper transactions only without any physical stock of the goods in the name of their numerous concerns they import rough and cut and polished diamonds for the other clients who do not want to show import in their own books. 6.3 Further, these concerns issued bills for accommodation entries on commission basis to various parties who normally purchase diamonds in cash from undisclosed parties and need bills to show purchases against sales in their account. These concerns also provide accommodation entries for unsecured loan against cash. The relevant portion of the statement given by Sri Bhanwarlal Jain is reproduced below for ready reference: "Ans. Shri Lunkaran Parasmal Kothari has correctly stated that import of Diamond in the concerns engaged and controlled by me of various concerns running from our offices mentioned in Annexure A of this statement does import diamond as per the modus explained by him. I do agree that import of diamond is made on behalf of certain local parties who do not wish to show such imports in their books of accounts. On receiving the consignment, the material is handed over to real importer out of books. However, in the books of the concerns managed and controlled by me and my son Shri Rajesh Jain, the said consignment still appear as stock since the material has been sold to the real importer out of books. To show sale against the bogus stock outstanding in your books, bogus sale bill are issued to parties against their purchase made in cash. These parties who take accommodation entries from your concerns make payment through RTGS. This RTGS is in turn used to make payment to the foreign parties from whom import has been made. The parties who have been given payment for such bogus purchase through RTGS want their cash back. In the meantime, the real importer on whose behalf import has been made, makes the payment for the said import through Aangaria (Cash transactions). The cash.." 6.4 Thus, the above statement has clearly established the modus operandi of the suppliers of the assessee that they were indulged in providing accommodation entries only, but not supply of material. 6 ITA NOs. 3851 & 3852/MUM/2019 M/s. C. Mahendra Exports Ltd., 6.5 Further during the course of appellate proceedings, the appellant has neither produced stock statement nor proved sales/exports of the material claimed to have purchased. In the absence of stock reconciliation statement reflecting opening stock, purchases, sales and closing stock, the purchases and sales effected by the appellant company cannot be ascertained. Contrary to the claim of the appellant that it has received payment for sales through proper banking channels, neither sale bills nor bank statements to that effect have been produced. Production of sale bills and the stocks purchased are the primary onus resting on the assessee and the assessee did not discharge the onus. As the assessee has to filed copies of sales/export bills and tried to co relate the quantity and quality of purchases with the sales especially, when in diamond trade, every diamond is counted and weighed scrupulously. While purchase and sale of each diamond or group of diamonds, the verification of them is necessary. Since the assessee has not produced stock statement and details of the said purchase transactions and delivery of the same and corresponding sales, the only inevitable conclusion to be drawn is that sales/exports of the consignments have not been effected. As the sales/exports are in doubt, purchases from grey market are also ruled out. An accommodation bill is obtained for introducing unaccounted goods. into the accounted stream thus resulting in inflation of purchases in order to reduce the profits. On similar facts, the Hon'ble High Court of Rajasthan in the case of C/T Vs Bright Future Gems 120171 88 taxmann.com 476 held as under on the issue: 'The assessee firm was 100 percent exporter of precious and semi precious stones. During assessment proceedings, the Assessing Officer, after making, in-depth enquiries, found that purchases made by the assessee from two parties to be bogus. The assessee also failed to produce owners of said two concerns. The Assessing officer, therefore made addition under Section 69C. On appeal, the tribunal on the statement of the power of attorney holder of said concern reversed the finding of the Assessing officer and deleted addition. Held that the Tribunal only on the statement of power attorney holder of said concern had given the finding: The finding was perverse. The view taken by the Tribunal was to be reversed. Apart from that, merely vouchers of the import export challans or challans of the customs clearance would not prove physical delivery of the material (precious stones). There was nothing on record to certify that the stones were verified by any of the valuers. It was all paper transaction for 7 ITA NOs. 3851 & 3852/MUM/2019 M/s. C. Mahendra Exports Ltd., the purpose of taking benefit of the export tax benefits. In that view of the matter, it was a bogus purchase and addition was rightly made. 6.6 The observations made by Hon'ble Court in Paragraph 6 to 10 are as follows; “6. We have heard the counsel for the appellant. 7. Before considering the matter, it will not be out of place to mention here that question which is posed for our consideration is whether the purchases which has been done from Vinayak Overseas is genuine or not. The Assessing Officer while observing at page 12 referred hereinabove and which was already considered by the CIT (A) has confirmed the finding and Vinayak Overseas has specifically contended that they were not transfer by Vinayak Overseas and they were absconding. The Tribunal only on the statement of M.P. Sharma who was power of attorney holder of Vinayak Overseas has given the finding. In our view, the finding is perverse. The view taken by the Tribunal is required to be reversed. 8. Apart from that merely voucher of the import export challans or challans of the custom clearance will not prove physical delivery of the material (precious stones). There is nothing on record to certify the stones which were verified by any of the valuer. In our view it is all paper transactions for the purpose of taking benefit of the export and tax benefits. 9. In that view of the matter, we are of the opinion that the view taken by the CIT (A) is required to be upheld and view taken by the Tribunal is required to be reversed. In that view of the matter, we are of the opinion that it is a bogus purchase and in our opinion, the finding which has been arrived by the Tribunal is not in consonance with the provisions of law, therefore, it is required to be reversed. 10. The issue is required to be answered in favour of Department against the assessee." 6.7 The Courts have clearly pronounced that stock reconciliation statements must be produced to prove a purchase transaction 8 ITA NOs. 3851 & 3852/MUM/2019 M/s. C. Mahendra Exports Ltd., genuine. The assessee, however, produced purchase bills and also evidence of making payment to these eight parties by cheque through banking channel. The purchase bills so submitted by the assessee, however, did not contain any details such as date of receipt, name and signature of delivery man who brought the stocks, order date, challan number, date of removal of goods, mode of transport, and the signature of the party who has received the goods. The genuine bills are signed by the Karigar after verifying its quality and the delivery boy. However, the purchase bills submitted by the appellant do not contain any such signatures. It appears from the perusal of these bills that all parties were located in Surat and all the invoices only mention CARAT weight without specifying any details of number of pieces and that of quality like V, VV, VVS etc., however prices paid vary in respect of each bill and invoice and even consignment vary substantially per carat t thereby indicating the type of quality and size of the diamonds. The language, format and font used in all the purchase bills though issued by eight different concerns are same which corroborate the fact that the bills have been prepared in one office and therefore not genuine. When an assessee attempts to prove its transactions by submitting fictitious invoices, restricting the addition at a certain percentage did not find favour of Hon'ble Gujarat High court in the case of N.K. Industries Ltd Vs DCIT [2016] taxmann. Com 289 Hon'ble Court in Para graph 6 held the following: “The Tribunal in the case of V/ay Proteins Ltd (supra) has observed that it would be just and proper to direct the Assessing Officer to restrict the addition in respect of the undisclosed income relating to the purchases to 25% of the total purchase. The said decision was confirmed by this Court as well. On consideration of the matter, we find the facts of the present case are identical to those of MIs Indian Woolen Carpet Factory (supra) or Vijay Proteins Ltd (supra). In the present case the Tribunal 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 Sec 68 and 69C of the Income-tax Act. The entire purchases shown on the basis 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 292,93,2881- represented alleged purchases from bogus suppliers it was not incumbent on it to restrict the disallowance to only Rs 73,23,322/-." 9 ITA NOs. 3851 & 3852/MUM/2019 M/s. C. Mahendra Exports Ltd., 6.8 Further, the addition of 100% purchases made by the AO is justified due to the above factual position and the judgment cited above. The view that the purchases were inflated is also supported from the quantum of total purchases affected during the year, thus, it is essential to analyse the financials of the appellant company reported during the year and its previous year. Particulars A.Y. 2008-09 ( In crores) Total Turnover 1367 Purchases 1172 Amount of bogus purchases 42 Income declared 19.8 6.9 It is evident from the said chart that with such a huge volume of turnover, manipulating 4-5% of the purchases is not an uphill task and the profit percentage declared by the appellant is abysmally low as compared to the industry during the years. These indicators clearly proved that the purchase price of rough and cut diamonds have been inflated to lower the profit percentage and evade taxes fictitiously. Therefore, the circumstantial and documentary evidences clearly establish that purchases were inflated. 6.10 The material available on record suggests that the appellant is in close contact with the suppliers during AY 2009-10 also. Thus, he could have very well produced them before the AO in support of his contention. Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of Shoreline Hotels (P) Ltd VS C/T ITA No 332 of 2016 dated 11.09.2018 held that the appellant has to ensure presence of supplier before the AO from whom it purchased goods without which addition of entire bogus purchase amount is justified. 6.11 The appellant contended that the transactions were carried out through banking channels and therefore genuine. Hon'ble Calcutta High Court in the case of C/T VS Precision Finance Pvt Ltd 1994 208 ITR 465(Cal) held that mere payment by account payee cheque is not sacrosanct nor can it make a non–genuine transaction genuine. Therefore, the payment through banking channel does not clearly prove the purchase transactions carried out by the assessee are genuine. 6.12 As far as the contention that Shri Bhanwarlal Jain retracted his earlier statements given during search operation is concerned, the employees of the Group concern who were heading the paper companies have not retracted their statements and Shri Jain failed to prove that the statements recorded by the Investigation Officers were taken forcefully or under pressure, coercion or threat. Hon'ble ITAT, Mumbai has recognised in a number of cases that Shri Jain 10 ITA NOs. 3851 & 3852/MUM/2019 M/s. C. Mahendra Exports Ltd., provided accommodation entries to various assessees through his paper companies. Therefore, retraction of Shri Jain is an afterthought and cannot be a basis to prove the purchase transactions genuine. 6.13 The appellant submitted that its stock statement reflects sale is affected against each purchase. However, the paper book submitted during the course of assessment proceedings—does not -contain any such details. The paper book contains copies of financial statements, ITR, audit report, purchase bills and bank statements only. Page no 47 to 54 is mentioned as containing ledger account of all parties where as the said pages contain charts reflecting debit and credit entries of bank accounts on various dates. The documents are not in proper ledger format with narration. 6.14 The appellant has relied on various judgements wherein Hon'ble Courts have either deleted or restricted the addition to 2% of total value of purchases. However, in these referred judgements, sales were not doubted and stock reconciliation statements were provided by the appellants. Therefore, the facts of the cases are distinguishable from those of the present case. As far as comparison of its facts with the case of Tejua Rohit Kumar Kapadia (Hon'ble Apex Court) is concerned, the appellant has not produced confirmation letters during the course of appellate proceedings and himself accepted that the parties remained untraceable. Therefore, reliance on the said judgement is not acceptable. The appellant has also taken an alternate stand for disallowance of only 3% of the bogus purchase amount based on the report of Task Force Group for diamond industry constituted by the Government of India, Ministry of Commerce and Industry. However, estimation at a certain percentage is not tenable when an assessee fails to prove the genuineness of purchases made by him. Hon'ble ITAT, Mumbai in the case of ITO Vs Ashok V Viradia [2017] 87 taxmann.com 156 made the following comments in the issue: "Section 69C of Income-tax Act, 1961-Unexplained Expenditure (Bogus Purchases)- Assessment year 2007-08- One 'R' group was engaged in providing accommodation entries like bogus purchase, sale, unsecured loan, share capital etc. Assessing Officer received information from Director (Inv) that the assessee was also one of beneficiaries who obtained accommodation entries of Rs 61.36 lakhs towards bogus purchases. Assessing officer thus added said amount to assessee's income under section 69C. commissioner (Appeals) took a view that it was only profit element on bogus purchases which was required to be added to assessee's income. He thus estimated gross profit at rate 11 ITA NOs. 3851 & 3852/MUM/2019 M/s. C. Mahendra Exports Ltd., of 7.86 percent and restricted addition made by assessing officer to Rs 4.82 lakh. Whether since assessee failed to prove genuineness of purchases made by him, there was no basis on part of Commissioner (Appeals) of estimating gross profit rate of 7.86 percent held yes. Whether, therefore, impugned order was to be set aside and, matter was to be remanded back for disposal afresh-held, yes [para 6] [In favour of revenue/matter remanded]" 6.15 Thus in the light of the aforesaid orders of the Hon'ble Courts and the reasoning flowing there from, I am of the considered view that the assessee has not carried out any purchase but the purchase figure was inflated hence, 100% addition on bogus purchase is upheld. Therefore, these grounds of appeal are dismissed. 7. Ground No.lb: This ground of appeal pertains to addition made without rejecting books of accounts and without referring any section. 8. Appellant's submission: "Ground 1(b) The Learned AO has erred in making the ad hoc additions without rejecting books of accounts and also the addition is made without referring any Section under which such addition is made. 1.30 The Assessing Officer has made the addition without rejecting books of accounts of the assessee. In one breath the AO says that he has perused the records and he has also not rejected the books of accounts. At the same time, he holds that the petitioner has not made full and true disclosure of income during the course of assessment proceedings by making an addition of 100% of said purchases i.e.Rs. 42,30,72,1321-. Such contradictory statements on part of the AO are not justified and are bad in law. 1.31 The Assessing Officer has directly made an addition of 100% of the amount of purchases i.e. Rs. 42,30, 72,1321- without clearly mentioning anywhere in the Assessment Order that the addition is to be made under which Section. 1.32 Thus, the learned Assessing Officer has erred in making the addition of 100% total purchases without referring to the Section under which addition is proposed to be made. Such an act on part of the AO is bad in law; hence the addition should be deleted." 12 ITA NOs. 3851 & 3852/MUM/2019 M/s. C. Mahendra Exports Ltd., 9. Decision: I have considered the facts and submissions made by the appellant. The appellant contended that the Assessing Officer has made the additions without rejecting the books of accounts and without referring any section under which such addition is made. it is apparent from the material available on record that the appellant has not carried out any purchase and sales transaction and therefore 100% addition was made to the total income of the assessee. As discussed in the previous paragraphs, when sales are in doubt, 100% addition of the purchase amount is justified. Various Courts have also held the same. Further, it is observed that the AO has made the additions for non-genuine purchases. The assessment order clearly discusses about the payments made in lieu of the bogus purchases and the basis of the assessment order is that the payment made by the assessee remained unexplained. Therefore, it is evident that the additions have been made u/s 69C of the Act being unexplained expenditure. The inadvertent omissions of mentioning the section under which addition is made, cannot be the sole reason to decide the assessment order passed by the AO and the findings of the Investigation Wing, Mumbai infructuous. This ground of appeal is therefore dismissed. 10. Ground No.2: This ground of appeal pertains to not providing opportunity to cross examine the purchase parties. 11. Appellant's submission: "The Learned AO has also erred in not providing an opportunity to cross- examine the purchase parties 2.1 Inspite of requests for cross examination, the AO has not provided even one opportunity to inspect and cross examine the parties on the basis of whose statements the case was reopened and addition was made. 2.2 In the case of C/T v. Eastern Commercial Enterprises (1994) 210 1TR 103 (Cal.) (HC), it was held that the assessee is entitled to cross- examine the person who was examined by the A. 0. Cross — examination is the sine qua non of due process of taking evidence and no adverse inference can be drawn against a party unless the party is put on notice of the case made out against him. He must be supplied the contents of all such evidence both oral and documentary, so that he can prepare to meet the case against him. This necessary also postulates that he should cross - examine the witness hostile to him. 13 ITA NOs. 3851 & 3852/MUM/2019 M/s. C. Mahendra Exports Ltd., 2.3. The Honorable Supreme Court observed in the case of Dhakeshwari Cotton Mills Ltd. v. C1T (1954) 26 1TR 775 (SC), if the AO proposes to use any material against the assessee, which is obtained by private enquiry, it should have been communicated to the assessee so as to know full particulars of the case and the failure to do so vitiates the case of the Revenue. 2.4 In the case of Kishinchand Chellaram v. C/T (1980) 125 1TR 713 (SC), it was held that the department is bound to afford an opportunity to controvert and cross examine the evidence on which the department places its reliance. Opportunity of cross examination must be given. The consequence of breach of natural justice is that either the addition is void or matter may have to be to be remanded to lower authorities. 2.5. The ratio of above cases is applicable to our case since the AO has not provided an opportunity to the appellant to cross examine the parties on whose statement he was relying for making additions. We request your Honor to consider our above submissions sympathetically and delete the addition made by the learned Assessing Officer and oblige." 12. Decision: I have considered the facts of the case and submissions made by the appellant. The appellant has contended that the assessment order was passed without providing opportunity for cross examination of the purchase parties. The A.O. relied upon the statements of statements of Key persons of Shri Bhanwarlal Jain and Group concerns who were heading the paper concerns. The assessee being fully aware that it has obtained bogus purchase bills demanded to cross examine the purchase parties from whom it has obtained the bogus bills. The purchase parties are the assessee's witnesses and it is construed that demand of cross examination of the parties is nothing but a delaying tactics. The issue in hand was supported by the judicial pronouncement of Hon'ble Allahabad High Court in the case of MotiLal Padampat Udyog Ltd. Vs. CIT (160 Taxman 233), wherein it is held that no question arose for summoning the said person for providing the assessee an opportunity to cross examine them because they have already given the statement under oath during the course of search and survey proceedings. Thus, the parties who had given statements are the assessee's witnesses and the assessee could have very well produced its witnesses before A.O. and prove its contention. Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of Shoreline Hotels (P) Ltd Vs. C/T ITA No 332 of 2016 dated 11.09.2018 held that the appellant has to ensure presence of supplier before the AO from whom it purchased goods without which 14 ITA NOs. 3851 & 3852/MUM/2019 M/s. C. Mahendra Exports Ltd., addition of entire bogus purchase amount is justified. Revenue has already established the purchases of the assessee as bogus. Now, the onus is cast upon the assessee to prove its claim of purchases as genuine and the assessee has failed in discharging that onus. 12.2 The Hon'ble ITAT, Mumbai in the case of Soman Sun Citi Vs JCIT ITA No 2916/Mum/2016 dated 23.10.2018 held that the right of cross examination is not absolute till the primary onus which lay on the assessee to prove the genuineness of the purchases and also to prove consumption/utilization of the material is discharged by the assessee. In light of the discussion made and referred judicial pronouncement, it is accepted that A.O. has acted well within jurisdiction by not acceding to the demand of the assessee to cross examine the parties' statements of whom the A.O. relied upon. This ground of appeal is therefore dismissed.” 8. On a careful perusal of the order of the Ld.CIT(A) and the reasons given therein, we do not find any reason to interfere especially when there is no material to controvert the findings of the First Appellate Authority. Accordingly, appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed. 9. Since the facts in other appeals are identical, the decision taken in ITA.No. 3851/Mum/2019 shall apply mutatis-mutandis to the appeal in i.e. ITA.No. 3852/Mum/2019. We order accordingly. 10. In the result, appeals filed by the assessee are dismissed. Order pronounced in the open court on 24.03.2022. Sd/- Sd/- (AMARJIT SINGH) (S. RIFAUR RAHMAN) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Mumbai / Dated 24.03.2022 Giridhar, Sr.PS 15 ITA NOs. 3851 & 3852/MUM/2019 M/s. C. Mahendra Exports Ltd., Copy of the Order forwarded to: 1. The Appellant 2. The Respondent. 3. The CIT(A), Mumbai. 4. CIT 5. DR, ITAT, Mumbai 6. Guard file. //True Copy// BY ORDER (Asstt. Registrar) ITAT, Mum