M/S. RADHA GOPI IMPEX, MUMBAI V. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-32(3), MUMBAI

ITA 5260/MUM/2019

• Counselvise Citation: [2021] 108 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 4060 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 9 month(s) 23 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 01-06-2021
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: D
• Assessment Year: 2009-2010
• Appeal Filed On: 09-08-2019
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: RAJENDRA JOSHI LD
• Keywords: Bogus purchase; Reassessment proceedings
• Section: 143(3); 133(6); 148

Judgement Text

1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL D BENCH, MUMBAI , , BEFORE HONBLE SHRI MAHAVIR SINGH, VP AND HONBLE SHRI MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL, AM (HEARING THROUGH VIDEO CONFERENCING MODE) ./ I.T.A. NO.5260/MUM/2019 ( / ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2009-10) M/S RADHA GOPI IMPEX 11 TH FLOOR, FLAT NO.1102, MAMTA HEIGHTS 414, DEVDAS LANE, OFF. SVP ROAD BORIWALI WEST, MUMBAI 400 103 / VS. ACIT - CIRCLE 32(3) G BLOCK, BKC, BANDRA KURLA COMPLEX BANDRA EAST MUMBAI - 400051 PAN NO. : AA HFR - 0445 - D ( !' /APPELLANT ) : ( #$!' / RESPONDENT ) ASSESSEE BY : NONE REVENUE BY : SHRI RAJENDRA JOSHI LD. SR. DR / DATE OF HEARING : 25/05/2021 / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 01/06/2021 / O R D E R MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) 1. AFORESAID APPEAL BY ASSESSEE FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR [AY IN SHORT] 2009-10 CONTEST THE ORDER OF LD. COMMISSIONER OF IN COME TAX (APPEALS)-44, MUMBAI [IN SHORT CIT(A) ] DATED 10/06 /2019 WHICH HAS CONFIRMED CERTAIN ADDITIONS ON ACCOUNT OF ALLEGED BOGUS PURCHASES. IN THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL, THE ASSESSEE CONTEST THE LEG ALITY OF REASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS AS WELL AS QUANTUM ADDITIONS ON MERIT. 2 2. THOUGH NONE APPEARED FOR ASSESSEE, HOWEVER, MATE RIAL ON RECORD WAS SUFFICIENT FOR DISPOSAL OF THE APPEAL. THE LD. DR PLEADED FOR DISMISSAL OF THE APPEAL. 3.1 THE MATERIAL FACTS ARE THAT THE ASSESSEE BEING RESIDENT FIRM STATED TO BE ENGAGED IN MANUFACTURING & TRADING OF DIAMOND S WAS ASSESSED FOR THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION U/S 143(3) R.W.S. 147 ON 05/12/2016. THE ORIGINAL RETURN FILED BY ASSESSEE WAS PROCESSED U/S 143(1). HOWEVER, PURSUANT TO SEARCH OPERATIONS ON SHRI RAJENDRA JAIN GROUP, IT TRANSPIRED THAT THE ASSESSEE MADE ALLEGED BOGUS PURCHASES OF R S.200.09 LACS FROM AN ENTITY NAMELY M/S AADI IMPEX ALLEGEDLY RUN BY THAT GROUP. ACCORDINGLY, THE CASE WAS REOPENED AS PER DUE PROCE SS OF LAW AND A NOTICE U/S 148 WAS SENT THROUGH SPEED POST ON 23/03 /2016. HOWEVER, THE NOTICE WAS RETURNED BACK BY POSTAL AUTHORITIES WITH REMARKS LEFT AND THEREFORE, THE ASSESSEES PLEA THAT THE NOTICE U/S 148 WAS NOT ISSUED UP- TO 31/03/2016 WAS REJECTED. DURING REASSESSMENT PRO CEEDINGS, THE ASSESSEE WAS SHOW-CAUSED TO SUBSTANTIATE THE PURCHA SES MADE FROM M/S AADI IMPEX. 3.2 IN SUPPORT OF PURCHASES, THE ASSESSEE FURNISHED COPIES OF PURCHASE BILLS, STOCK STATEMENT AND BANK STATEMENTS EVIDENCING PAYMENT THROUGH BANKING CHANNELS. HOWEVER, NOTICES ISSUED U/S 133(6) TO THE SUPPLIER DID NOT ELICIT SATISFACTORY RESPONS E. THE ASSESSEE COULD NOT PRODUCE THE SUPPLIER FOR CONFIRMATION OF TRANSA CTIONS. THE LD. AO, AFTER CONSIDERING ENTIRE FACTUAL MATRIX AS WELL AS IN THE BACKGROUND OF SEARCH FINDINGS, ESTIMATED AN ADDITION OF 8% ON THE SE PURCHASES. 4. THE LD. CIT(A), INTER-ALIA, AFTER CONSIDERING VA RIOUS ORDERS OF THE TRIBUNAL RELATING TO DIAMOND MANUFACTURER / TRADERS , RESTRICTED THE 3 ESTIMATION TO 4%. STILL AGGRIEVED, THE ASSESSEE IS IN FURTHER APPEAL BEFORE US. 5. GOING BY THE FACTUAL MATRIX AS ENUMERATED IN THE ORDERS OF LOWER AUTHORITIES, WE FIND THAT THE SALES TURNOVER WAS NO T IN DOUBT AND THE ASSESSEE WAS IN POSSESSION OF PRIMARY PURCHASE DOCU MENTS. THE PAYMENT TO THE SUPPLIER WAS THROUGH BANKING CHANNEL S. THERE COULD BE NO SALE WITHOUT ACTUAL PURCHASE OF MATERIAL KEEPING IN VIEW THE ASSESSEES NATURE OF BUSINESS. THE FACTS OF THE CAS E MADE IT A FIT CASE TO ESTIMATE THE PROFIT ELEMENT EMBEDDED IN THESE TRANS ACTIONS. THE LD. CIT(A), AFTER DUE CONSIDERATION OF ASSESSEES SUBMI SSIONS AS WELL AS VARIOUS ORDERS OF TRIBUNAL PASSED ON IDENTICAL FACT UAL MATRIX, ESTIMATED THE ADDITIONS @ 4% WHICH, IN OUR OPINION, WAS QUITE FAIR TO TAKE CA RE OF THE LEAKAGE OF REVENUE. THEREFORE, THE ESTIMATION C OULD NOT BE TERMED AS UNJUSTIFIED, IN ANY MANNER. FINDING NO REASON TO IN TERFERE IN THE IMPUGNED ORDER, WE DISMISS THIS GROUND RAISED BY TH E ASSESSEE. THE ASSESSEE HAS ALSO PLEADED THAT NOTICE U/S 148 W AS NOT SERVED WITHIN TIME. HOWEVER, THE SAME HAS APPROPRIATELY BE EN DEALT WITH BY LOWER AUTHORITIES IN THEIR RESPECTIVE ORDERS. NO IN FIRMITY COULD BE SEEN IN THE ORDERS OF LD. AO IN ACQUIRING THE REASSESSMENT JURISDICTION. THE LEGAL GROUNDS ALSO STAND DISMISSED. 6. THE APPEAL STANDS DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED ON 01 ST JUNE, 2021 SD/- SD/- (MAHAVIR SINGH) (MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL) / VICE PRESIDENT / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER MUMBAI; DATED : 01 ST JUNE, 2021 SR.PS, JAISY VARGHESE 4 ! / 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.