ITO WARD 25(2(1), Mumbai V. V/S SMT. ANURADHA R DALMIA, Mumbai

ITA 4533/MUM/2019

• Counselvise Citation: [2021] 108 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 4962 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 9 month(s) 1 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 05-04-2021
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Assessment Year: 2010-2011
• Appeal Filed On: 04-07-2019
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: SANJAY J SETHI
• Keywords: Bogus purchase
• Section: 133(6); 250

Judgement Text

, IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH SMC, MUMBAI , ! BEFORE SHRI VIKAS AWASTHY, JUDICIAL MEMBER . 4533 / /201 9 ((. . 2010-11 ) ITA NO.4533/MUM/2019 (A.Y.2010-11) ITO-WARD 25(2)(1), ROOM NO.215, 2 ND FLOOR, KAUTILYA BHAWAN, G BLOCK, BKC, BANDRA-E, MUMBAI 400 051 ...... * / APPELLANT ( VS. SMT. ANURADHA R. DALMIA, 12-A, RAJ MILAN, 5 TH FLOOR, DIXIT ROAD, VILE PARLE -E, MUMBAI 400 057 PAN: AADPD 2915Q ..... +,/ RESPONDENT *-/ APPELLANT BY : SHRI SANJAY J. SETHI +,-/ RESPONDENT BY : NONE (., / DATE OF HEARING : 06/01/2021 /01 ., / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 05/04/2021 / ORDER THIS APPEAL BY THE REVENUE IS DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER OF COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS)-18, MUMBAI [IN SHORT THE CIT( A)] DATED 26/04/2019 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2011-12. 2. SHRI SANJAY J. SETHI REPRESENTING THE DEPARTMEN T SUBMITTED THAT DURING THE PERIOD RELEVANT TO ASSESSMENT YEAR UNDER APPEAL, TH E ASSESSEE HAS OBTAINED BOGUS PURCHASE BILLS AMOUNTING TO RS.67,11,021/- FROM M/S . ARUN PAPER & IRON TRADERS A DECLARED HAWALA OPERATOR BY THE SALES TAX DEPARTMEN T, GOVERNMENT OF 2 . 4533 / / 2019 ((. .2010-11 ) ITA NO.4533/MUM/2019 (A.Y.2010-11) MAHARASHTRA. DURING ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, THE ASS ESSEE FAILED TO PROVE GENUINENESS OF PURCHASES AND THE DEALER. EVEN THE N OTICE SENT TO DEALER U/S. 133(6) OF THE ACT BY THE ASSESSING OFFER WAS RETURNED BACK UNSERVED. THE ASSESSING OFFICER MADE ADDITION BY ESTIMATING PROFIT EMBEDDED IN BOGU S PURCHASES AS 25%. THE ASSESSEE FILED APPEAL AGAINST ASSESSMENT ORDER DATE D 19/09/2016 PASSED UNDER SECTION 143 (3) R.W.S. 147 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1 961 (IN SHORT THE ACT). THE CIT(A) DELETED THE ENTIRE ADDITION. THE LD. DEPARTMENTAL R EPRESENTATIVE PRAYED FOR REVERSING THE FINDINGS OF CIT(A) AND RESTORING THE ADDITION MADE IN ASSESSMENT ORDER. TO FURTHER BUTTRESS HIS SUBMISSIONS, THE LD. DEPART MENTAL REPRESENTATIVE PLACED RELIANCE ON THE DECISION OF HONBLE SUPREME COURT O F INDIA IN THE CASE OF N.K. PROTEINS LTD. VS DCIT, 250 TAXMAN 22(SC). 3. THE SUBMISSIONS MADE BY LD. DEPARTMENTAL REPRESE NTATIVE HEARD AND ORDERS OF AUTHORITIES BELOW EXAMINED. THE ASSESSEE IS ENG AGED IN TRADING OF CRAFT PAPER. DURING THE PERIOD RELEVANT TO ASSESSMENT YEAR UNDER APPEAL, THE ASSESSEE FURNISHED VARIOUS DOCUMENTS INCLUDING CONFIRMATION FROM THE S UPPLIER, PURCHASE BILLS, BANK STATEMENTS, ETC. TO SUBSTANTIATE GENUINENESS OF PUR CHASES. THE CIT(A) SOUGHT REMAND REPORT FROM THE ASSESSING OFFICER ON THE ADDITIONAL DOCUMENTS FURNISHED BY THE ASSESSEE DURING FIRST APPELLATE STAGE. IN REMAND RE PORT, THE ASSESSING OFFICER ADMITTED THAT SH. ARUN AGGARWAL, PROP. M/S. ARUN PA PER & IRON TRADERS HAS CONFIRMED THE SALE OF GOODS TO THE ASSESSEE AND SUP PORTED THE SAME BY LEDGER AND BANK STATEMENT. IT IS FURTHER OBSERVED THAT ADDITIO N ON ACCOUNT OF BOGUS PURCHASES FROM THE SAME SUPPLER WAS MADE IN ASSESSMENT YEAR 2 009-10. IN ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS FOR AY 2009-10, ARUN AGGARWAL APPEARED BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND HIS STATEMENT WAS RECORDED WHEREIN HE CONFIRMED SUPPLY OF MATERIAL TO THE ASSESSEE IN F.Y. 2008-09, 2009-10 AND 2010-11. CONS IDERING THE DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE ON RECORD & THE STATEMENT OF THE SUPPLIER, ADDITION ON ACCOUNT OF BOGUS PURCHASES IN AY 2009-10 WAS DELETED BY THE FIRST AP PELLATE AUTHORITY. IN THE 3 . 4533 / / 2019 ((. .2010-11 ) ITA NO.4533/MUM/2019 (A.Y.2010-11) IMPUGNED ASSESSMENT YEAR AS WELL, THE NATURE OF TRA NSACTION AND THE SUPPLIER OF GOODS IS THE SAME. THE ASSESSEE HAS DISCHARGED HER ONUS IN PROVING GENUINENESS OF THE PURCHASES AND THE SUPPLIER OF GOODS BY PLACING ON RECORD RELEVANT DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE AND THE CONFIRMATION FROM THE SUPPLIER. I SEE NO INFIRMITY IN THE IMPUGNED ORDER, THE SAME IS UPHELD AND THE APPEAL BY REVENUE IS DISMISSED, SANS-MERIT. 4. IN THE RESULT, APPEAL BY THE REVENUE IS DISMISS ED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON MONDAY, THE 05 TH DAY OF APRIL, 2021. SD./- (VIKAS AWASTHY) / JUDICIAL MEMBER / MUMBAI, 3(/ DATED: 05/04/2021 VM , SR. PS (O/S) COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. * / THE APPELLANT , 2. +, / THE RESPONDENT. 3. 4, ( )/ THE CIT(A)- 4. 4, CIT 5. 56+,( , . . . , / DR, ITAT, MUMBAI 6. 6789: / GUARD FILE. BY ORDER, //TRUE COPY// (DY./ASSTT. REGISTRAR) ITAT, MUMBAI