RISHABH STEELL (HOUSE), MUMBAI V. ITO 19 (3)(1), MUMBAI

ITA 5078/MUM/2018

• Counselvise Citation: [2019] 118 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 1440 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 6 month(s) 13 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 18-03-2019
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Assessment Year: 2007-2008
• Appeal Filed On: 04-09-2018
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: D G
• Assessee Lawyers: VIMAL PUNAMIYA LD
• Keywords: Bogus purchase; Reassessment proceedings
• Section: 143(3); 142(1); 133(6); 143(1); 147; 148

Judgement Text

1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL D BENCH, MUMBAI , , BEFORE HONBLE SHRI MAHAVIR SINGH, JM AND HONBLE SHRI MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL, AM ./ I.T.A. NO.5078/MUM/2018 ( / ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2007-08) & ./ I.T.A. NO.5157/MUM/2018 ( / ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2011-12) M/S. RISHABH STEEL (HOUSE) 101/102, RISHAB HOUSE 30, DUCAN ROAD M.A. ROAD, MUMBAI-400 004. / VS. I TO - 19(3)(1) ROOM NO.206, 1 ST FLOOR TARDEO ROAD MUMBAI-400 007. ./ ./PAN/GIR NO. AACFR-2807-C ( ! /APPELLANT ) : ( '#! / RESPONDENT ) APPELLANT BY : VIMAL PUNAMIYA- LD. AR RESPONDENT BY : D.G. PANSARI - LD.DR / DATE OF HEARING : 12/03/2019 / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 18/03/2019 / O R D E R PER MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) 1. AFORESAID APPEALS BY ASSESSEE FOR ASSESSMENT YEA RS [IN SHORT REFERRED TO AS AY] 2007-08 AND 2011-12 CONTEST CO MMON ORDER OF LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (APPEALS)-30, MUMBAI, [I N SHORT REFERRED TO AS CIT(A)], APPEAL NOS. CIT(A)-30/19(3)(1)/682/2015-16 AND CIT( A)- 30/19(3)/451/2016-17 DATED 16/07/2018 QUA CONFIRMATION OF CERTAIN ADDITION ON ACCOUNT OF ALLEGED BOGUS PURCHASES. THE ASSESSEE HAS ALSO 2 CHALLENGED THE REASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS ON LEGAL GR OUNDS. THE ASSESSEE BEING RESIDENT FIRM WAS STATED TO BE ENGAGED AS DEALER OF FERROUS & NONFERROUS METALS. ITA NO. 5078/MUM/2018, AY 2007-08 2.1 THE PERUSAL OF QUANTUM ASSESSMENT ORDER PASSED U/S 143(3) READ WITH SECTION 147 DATED 12/03/2015 REVEAL THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS BEEN SADDLED WITH QUANTUM ADDITIONS OF RS.18.73 LACS ON ACCOUNT OF ALLEGED BOGUS PURCHASES WHICH IS THE SOLE SUBJECT MATTER OF INSTANT APPEAL BEFORE US. THE ASSESSEE HAD FILED ITS RETURN OF INC OME FOR IMPUGNED AY ON 30/10/2007 WHICH WAS PROCESSED U/S 143(1). 2.2 THE REASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS GOT TRIGGERED PURS UANT TO RECEIPT OF CERTAIN INFORMATION FROM DGIT (INV.), MUMBAI WHEREIN IT TRANSPIRED THAT THE ASSESSEE STOOD BENEFITTED BY CERTAIN ACCOMMODAT ION PURCHASE BILLS AGGREGATING TO RS.93.68 LACS STATED TO BE PROCURED FROM 3 PARTIES, THE DETAILS OF WHICH HAVE ALREADY BEEN EXTRACTED AT PARA 2 OF THE QUANTUM ASSESSMENT ORDER. CONSEQUENTLY, NOTICE U/S 148 WAS ISSUED ON 24/03/2014 WHICH WAS FOLLOWED BY STATUTORY NOTICES U/S 143(2) & 142(1) WHEREIN THE ASSESSEE WAS DIRECTED TO SUBSTANTIATE T HE PURCHASE TRANSACTIONS. 2.3 THE NOTICES SENT U/S 133(6) TO THE SUPPLIERS, T O CONFIRM THESE TRANSACTIONS, REMAINED UNSERVED BY THE POSTAL AUTHO RITIES AND THE ASSESSEE ALSO FAILED TO PRODUCE ANY OF THE SUPPLIER TO CONFIRM THE TRANSACTIONS. ALTHOUGH THE ASSESSEE DEFENDED THE PU RCHASES BY SUBMITTING PURCHASE BILLS, BANK STATEMENTS, VAT CHA LLANS, LEDGER EXTRACTS, HOWEVER, FAILED TO SUBSTANTIATE THE ACTUA L DELIVERY OF MATERIAL WITH SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS. FINALLY, RELYING UPON TH E DECISION OF HONBLE GUJARAT HIGH COURT RENDERED IN CIT VS. SIMIT P.SHETH [356 ITR 451], LD. 3 AO ESTIMATED THE ADDITION AGAINST THE SAME @20% WHI CH RESULTED INTO IMPUGNED ADDITIONS OF RS,18.73 LACS IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSEE. 3. THE LD. FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY WHILE UPHOLDIN G THE VALIDITY OF REASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS RESTRICTED THE IMPUGNED AD DITIONS TO 5% KEEPING IN VIEW THE DECISION OF THIS TRIBUNAL RENDE RED IN ASSESSEES OWN CASE FOR AYS 2006-07, 2009-10 & 2010-11. AGGRIEVED, THE ASSESSEE IS IN FURTHER APPEAL BEFORE US. 4. THE LD. AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE FOR ASSESSEE [ AR] PLEADED FOR FURTHER RELIEF TO THE ASSESSEE WHEREAS LD. DEPARTME NTAL REPRESENTATIVE SUBMITTED THAT THE IMPUGNED ORDER IS IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE ORDER OF THIS TRIBUNAL FOR OTHER YEARS. 5. UPON CAREFUL CONSIDERATION, THE UNDISPUTED FACT THAT EMERGES OUT IS THAT FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY HAS ESTIMATED THE AD DITION IN LINE WITH THE DECISION OF THIS TRIBUNAL IN ASSESSEES OWN CASE FO R EARLIER YEARS. THEREFORE, FACTS & CIRCUMSTANCES BEING PARI-MATERIA THE SAME, NO INFIRMITY COULD BE FOUND IN THE SAME. SO FAR AS THE VALIDITY OF REASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS IS CONCERNED, WE FIND THAT THE RETURN WAS PROCESSED U/S 143(1) AND SUBSEQUENTLY, SOME TANGIBL E MATERIAL IN THE SHAPE OF INFORMATION FROM DGIT (INV.) CAME UNTO THE POSSESSION OF LD. AO WHICH INDICATED ESCAPEMENT OF INCOME IN THE HAND S OF THE ASSESSEE. THEREFORE, THE PROCEEDINGS WERE PERFECTLY VALID. 6. RESULTANTLY, THE APPEAL STANDS DISMISSED. ITA NO. 5157/MUM/2018, AY 2011-12 7. FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES ARE PARI-MATERIA THE SAME IN THIS YEAR. THE IMPUGNED ORDER IS COMMON ORDER FOR AY 2007-08 & 2011-12. THE LD. CIT(A) HAS SIMPLY FOLLOWED THE OBSERVATIONS AS MADE IN AY 2007-08. 4 THEREFORE, TAKING THE SAME VIEW, FINDING NO INFIRMI TY IN THE SAME, WE DISMISS THE APPEAL. 8. RESULTANTLY, THE APPEAL STANDS DISMISSED. CONCLUSION 9. BOTH THE APPEALS STAND DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 18 TH MARCH, 2019. SD/- SD/- (MAHAVIR SINGH) (MA NOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL) / JUDICIAL MEMBER / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER MUMBAI; DATED : 18/03/2019 SR.PS, JAISY VARGHESE !'#$ # / COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. ! / THE APPELLANT 2. '#! / THE RESPONDENT 3. * ( ) / THE CIT(A) 4. * / CIT CONCERNED 5. +, '%- , - , / DR, ITAT, MUMBAI 6. ,./0 / GUARD FILE / BY ORDER, / (DY./ASSTT.REGISTRAR) , / ITAT, MUMBAI.