ITO 18(3)(1), MUMBAI V. BILAL AHMED ABDUL RAUF, MUMBAI

ITA 4891/MUM/2014

• Counselvise Citation: [2016] 131 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 3460 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 26 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 19-08-2016
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Assessment Year: 2010-2011
• Appeal Filed On: 24-07-2014
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: CHANDRA VIJAY
• Assessee Lawyers: B P PUROHIT; LAVANYA RASPUROHIT
• Keywords: Bogus purchase; Corroborative evidences

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI B BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI SHAILENDRA KUMAR YADAV, JUDICIAL MEMBER, AND SHRI RAJESH KUMAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER. ITA. NO. 4891/MUM/2014 (ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2010-11) ITO-18(3) APPELLANT ROOM NO.207, 2 ND FLOOR, PIRAMAL CHAMBERS, LALBAUG MUMBAI VS. SHRI BILAL AHMED ABDUL RAUF RESPONDENT 401-A, BUILDING HOUSE, 146, V.S. MARG, MAHIM, MUMBAI-400016 PAN: AATPB 3087H /BY APPELLANT : SHRI CHANDRA VIJAY, /BY RESPONDENT: S/SHRI B.P. PUROHIT & LAVANYA RASPUROHIT /DATE OF HEARING : 16.08.2016 /DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 19.08.2016 ORDER PER SHAILENDRA KUMAR YADAV, J.M: THIS APPEAL HAS BEEN FILED BY THE REVENUE AGAINST T HE ORDER OF COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (APPEALS)-29, M UMBAI, DATED 30.05.2014 FOR A.Y. 2010-11 ON FOLLOWING GROU ND: ITA NO.4891/MUM/14 A.Y. 2010-11 [ITO VS. BILAL AHME D ABDUL RAUF] PAGE 2 1. ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW , THE LD CIT (A) ERRED IN DELETING THE ADDITION OF RS.49,06,446/- MADE ON ACCOUNT OF BOGUS PURCHASES. 2. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CAS E AND IN LAW, THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN DELETING THE ADDIT ION OF RS.49,06,446/- WITHOUT APPRECIATING THE FACT THAT THE ASSESSEE IS NOT KEEPING AND MAINTAINING DAY- TO-DAY STOCK REGISTER FOR RAW MATERIALS & FINISHED GOODS AND ALS O NOT KEEPING AND MAINTAINING ANY PERIODIC MANUFACTURING ACCOUNTS. 3. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CAS E AND IN LAW, THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN DELETING THE ADDIT ION OF RS. 49.06446/- WITHOUT APPRECIATING THE FACT THAT T HE ASSESSEE HAS FAILED TO DISCHARGE THE ONUS OF PRODUC ING ANY CORROBORATIVE EVIDENCES VIZ, DETAILS OF DELIVERY OF GOODS SUCH AS TRANSPORTATION, LORRY DETAILS - INWARD AND OUTWA RD, DELIVERY CHALLAN ETC. TO PROVE THAT THE PURCHASES A RE GENUINE. 2. BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT AO IN ASSESSMEN T ORDER MADE ADDITION OF RS.49,06,446/- ON ACCOUNT OF BOGUS PURCHASES. IN APPEAL THE CIT(A) GRANTED RELIEF TO T HE ASSESSEE, SAME HAS BEEN BEFORE US INTER ALIA SUBMITTING THAT DELETION OF ADDITION OF RS.49,06,446/- MADE BY AO ON ACCOUNT OF BOGUS PURCHASES WERE NOT JUSTIFIED, ACCORDINGLY THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A) BE QUASHED AND THAT OF THE AO BE RESTORED. O N THE OTHER HAND, LEARNED AR SUPPORTED THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A). 2.1 WE FIND THAT WHILE MAKING ADDITION ASSESSING OF FICER HAS MATERIAL ON RECORD TO SUGGEST BOGUS PURCHASES AMOUN TING TO RS.49,06,446/- FROM M/S. MARUTI STEEL AND M/S. SHIV INDUSTRIES. IN FACT WHILE TREATING THE ABOVE PURCHA SES AS BOGUS, THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS SIMPLY RELIED ON THE STAT EMENTS GIVEN BY THESE PARTIES BEFORE THE SALES TAX AUTHORITIES. SUCH STATEMENTS RECORDED BY SALES TAX AUTHORITIES DOES N OT CONTAIN ANY SPECIFIC REFERENCE TO THE ASSESSEE THAT THE SAL ES MADE TO ITA NO.4891/MUM/14 A.Y. 2010-11 [ITO VS. BILAL AHME D ABDUL RAUF] PAGE 3 HIM BY THE PARTIES IN QUESTION WERE BOGUS. ON THE C ONTRARY, THE EVIDENCE FILED BY THE ASSESSEE BEFORE THE ASSES SING OFFICER, SUCH AS ADMISSION IN THE STATEMENT RECORDED U/S.131 OF THESE PARTIES BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER THAT THE SALE WERE AFFTECTED BY THEM TO THE ASSESSEE, THEIR COPIES OF ACCOUNT IN THE BOOKS OF THE ASSESSEE, DELIVER CHALLANS, BANK STATEMENTS, AN D THE PAYMENTS MADE THROUGH THE BANKING CHANNELS ARE SUFF ICIENT EVIDENCES TO PROVES THAT THE PURCHASES ARE GENUINE AND IN ORDER. IT IS NOT A CASE OF AO THAT THE PAYMENTS AGA INST THESE PURCHASES WERE IN CASH. ALL THE PAYMENTS HAVE BEEN MADE THROUGH CHEQUES AND DEBITED IN THE BANK ACCOUNT OF THE APPELLANT IN THE NAMES OF THE PARTIES CONCERNED. FU RTHER IT IS NOT THE CASE OF THE AO THAT HE HAS MADE FURTHER INV ESTIGATION TO ESTABLISH THAT THESE PAYMENTS MADE TO THE PARTIE S IN QUESTION WERE WITHDRAWN FROM THEIR ACCOUNTS AND FLO WN BACK TO THE ASSESSEE. IN ABSENCE OF ANY SUCH EVIDENCE PL ACED ON RECORD, PURCHASES MADE FROM THESE PARTIES OR THE PA YMENTS MADE TO THEM COULD BE TREATED AS BOGUS. THEREFORE, WE ARE NOT INCLINED TO INTERFERE WITH THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A), WE UPHOLD THE SAME. 3. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE REVENUE IS DISM ISSED. PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON THIS THE 19 TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2016. SD/- SD/- ( RAJESH KUMAR ) (SHAILENDRA KUMAR YADAV) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBE R MUMBAI: DATED 19/08/2016 PRABHAT KESARWANI TRUE COPY ITA NO.4891/MUM/14 A.Y. 2010-11 [ITO VS. BILAL AHME D ABDUL RAUF] PAGE 4 / COPY OF ORDER FORWARDED TO:- / REVENUE !# / ASSESSEE $ %&%'( ) / CONCERNED CIT * )+ / CIT (A) ,-./00'(1 '( 12 %& / DR, ITAT, MUMBAI 3/4567 / GUARD FILE. BY ORDER / #8 1 9: ;% 1 '( 12 %&<