VIRESH VORA HUF, MUMBAI V. ITO WD 32(3)(5), MUMBAI

ITA 4527/MUM/2018

• Counselvise Citation: [2019] 116 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 2471 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 1 month(s) 15 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 03-09-2019
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Assessment Year: 2009-2010
• Appeal Filed On: 18-07-2018
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: CHAITANYA ANJARIA
• Keywords: Bogus purchase; Opportunity of being heard; Set aside
• Section: 201

Judgement Text

T HE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL SMC BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI SHAMIM YAHYA ( A M) I.T.A. NO. 4527 /MUM/ 201 8 (ASSESSMENT YEAR 20 09 - 10 ) VIRESH VORA HUF B - 302, DWARKESH BUILDING L.T. ROAD, BORIVALI (WEST) MUMBAI - 400 092. PAN : AACHV5921R V S . ITO WAR D 32(3)(5) BANDRA KURLA COMPLEX, BANDRA MUMBAI - 400051. ( APPELLANT ) ( RESPONDENT ) ASSESSEE BY NONE DEPARTMENT BY SHRI CHAITANYA ANJARIA DATE OF HEARING 4 .7 . 201 9 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT 3.9 . 201 9 O R D E R THIS IS AN APPEAL BY THE ASSE SSEE WHEREIN THE ASSESSEE IS A G GRIEVED THAT THE LEARNED CIT - A HAS ERRED IN SUSTAINING 12.5% DISALLOWANCE ON ACCOUNT OF BOGUS PURCHASES, VIDE ORDER DATED 31.5.2018 PERTAINING TO ASSESSMENT YEAR 2009 - 10. 2. B RIEF FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT ASSESSEE IN THIS CASE IS ENGAGED IN THE BUSINESS OF TRADING IN PLYWOOD. THE ASSESSMENT IN THIS CASE WAS REOPENED UPON RECEIPT OF INFORMATION FROM THE SALES TAX DEPARTMENT THAT ASSESSEE HAS MADE BOGUS PURCHASES. THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THE PURCHASE VOUCHERS AND THE PAYMENTS WERE MADE THROUGH BANKING CHANNEL. HOWEVER THE SUPPLIERS WERE NOT PRODUCED BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER. SALES IN THIS CASE WERE NOT DOUBTED. T HE INCOME TAX OFFICER IN THIS CASE HAS MADE 12.5% ADDITION ON ACCOUNT OF BOGUS PURCHASE RESULTING IN DISALLOWAN CE OF RS. 7,62,832/ - . 3. UPON ASSESSEE S APPEAL ID CIT ( A ) CONFIRMED THE SAME . AGAINST ABOVE ORDER ASSESSEE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE THE ITAT. VIRESH VORA HUF 2 4. I HAVE HEARD LEARNED DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE AND PERUSED THE RECORDS. NONE APPEARED ON BEHALF OF THE ASSES SEE DESPITE NOTICE. 5. UP ON CAREFUL CONSIDERATION I FIND THAT ASSESSEE HAS PROVIDED THE DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE FOR THE PURCHASE. ADVERSE INFERENCE HAS BEEN DRAWN DUE TO THE INABILITY OF THE ASSESSEE TO PRODUCE THE SUPPLIERS. I FIND THAT IN THIS CASE THE SA LES HAVE NOT BEEN DOUBTED. IT IS SETTLED LAW THAT WHEN SALES ARE NOT DOUBTED, HUNDRED PERCENT DISALLOWANCE FOR BOGUS PURCHASE CANNOT BE DONE. THE RATIONALE BEING NO SALES IS POSSIBLE WITHOUT ACTUAL PURCHASES. THIS PROPOSITION IS SUPPORTED FROM HONOURABLE J URISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT DECISION IN THE CASE OF NIKUNJ EXIMP E NTERPRISES (IN WRIT PETITION NO 2860, ORDER DT 18.6.2014). IN THIS CASE THE HONOURABLE HIGH COURT HAS UPHELD HUNDRED PERCENT ALLOWANCE FOR THE PURCHASES SAID TO BE BOGUS WHEN SALES ARE NOT DOUB TED. HOWEVER IN THAT CASE ALL THE SUPPLIES WERE TO GOVERNMENT AGENCY. 6 . IN THE PRESENT CASE THE FACTS OF THE CASE INDICATE THAT ASSESSEE HAS MADE PURCHASE FROM THE GREY MARKET. MAKING PURCHASES THROUGH THE GREY MARKET GIVES THE ASSESSEE SAVINGS ON ACCO UNT OF NON - PAYMENT OF TAX AND OTHERS AT THE EXPENSE OF THE EXCHEQUER. AS REGARDS THE QUANTIFICATION OF THE PROFIT ELEMENT EMBEDDED IN MAKING OF SUCH BOGUS/UNSUBSTANTIATED PURCHASES BY THE ASSESSEE, I FIND THAT AS HELD BY HONOURABLE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY IN ITS RECENT JUDGEMENT IN THE CASE OF PRINCIPLE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX VERSUS M HAJI ADAM & CO (ITA NUMBER 1004 OF 2016 DATED 11/2/2019 IN PARAGRAPH 8 THERE OFF), THE ADDITION IN RESPECT OF BOGUS PURCHASES IS TO BE LIMITED TO THE EXTENT OF BRINGING THE G ROSS PROFIT RATE ON SUCH PURCHASES AT THE SAME RATE AS OF OTHER GENUINE PURCHASES. I RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE AFORESAID JUDGEMENT OF THE HONOURABLE HIGH COURT SET ASIDE THE MATTER TO THE FILE OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER WITH THE DIRECTION TO RESTRICT THE AD DITION AS REGARDS THE BOGUS PURCHASES BY BRINGING THE GROSS PROFIT RATE ON SUCH BOGUS PURCHASES AT THE SAME RATE AS THAT OF THE OTHER GENUINE PURCHASES. NEEDLESS TO ADD THE ASSESSEE SHOULD BE GRANTED ADEQUATE OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD . VIRESH VORA HUF 3 7 . IN THE RESU LT , ASSESSEE'S APPEAL IS PARTLY ALLOWED. ORDER HAS BE EN PRONOUNCED IN THE COURT ON 3 . 9 . 201 9 . SD/ - (SH A MIM YAHYA ) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER MUMBAI ; DATED : 3 / 9 / 20 1 9 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// ( ASSISTANT REGISTRAR ) PS ITAT, MUMBAI