PRATAP N. RAJGOR, MUMBAI V. ITO 19(2)(5), MUMBAI

ITA 5273/MUM/2018

• Counselvise Citation: [2019] 116 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 1715 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 8 month(s) 3 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 16-05-2019
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Assessment Year: 2010-2011
• Appeal Filed On: 12-09-2018
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: AWUNGSHI GIMSAN; ABI RAMA KART
• Assessee Lawyers: A Y MANGALAM DRUGS
• Keywords: Bogus purchase; Unexplained expenditure; Depreciation; Tangible material; Accommodation entries; Capital expenditure
• Section: 69C; 143(3); 133A; 201; 148

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCHES C, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI RAJESH KUMAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER & SHRI RAM LAL NEGI, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA NO.5273/MUM/2018 A.Y: 2007-08 ITA NO.5275/MUM/2018 A.Y: 2008-09 ITA NO.5276/MUM/2018 A.Y: 2009-10 ITA NO.3267/MUM/2017 A.Y: 2010-11 ITO 1(2)(3) , MUMBAI VS. MANGALAM DRUGS & ORGANICS LTD., RUPAM BLDG., 3 RD FLOOR, P D MELLO ROAD, NEAR GPO, MUMBAI 400 001. PAN AAACM7880D (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) CO NO. 41/MUM/2018 (ARISING OUT OF ITA NO. 5273/MUM/2018 A.Y: 2007-08) CO NO. 42/MUM/2018 (ARISING OUT OF ITA NO. 5275/MUM/2018 A.Y: 2008-09) CO NO. 43/MUM/2018 (ARISING OUT OF ITA NO. 5276/MUM/2018 A.Y: 2009-10) CO NO. 214/MUM/2017 (ARISING OUT OF ITA NO.3267/MUM/2017 FOR A.Y : 2010 -11) MANGALAM DRUGS & ORGANICS LTD., MUMBAI 400 001. PAN AAACM7880D VS. ITO 1(2)(3), MUMBAI (CROSS-OBJECTOR) (RESPONDENT) FOR THE REVENUE : SHRI AWUNGSHI GIMSAN & SHRI ABI RAMA KARTIKEYAN FOR THE CROSS-OBJECTOR : SHRI V K TULSIAN DATE OF HEARING : 2 1 .0 2 .201 9 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 16 .05 . 201 9 O R D E R PER RAJESH KUMAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER : THE CAPTIONED APPEALS ARE BY THE REVENUE AGAINST SEPARATE BUT IDENTICAL ORDERS OF TH E CIT(A), WHICH IN TURN ARISE OUT MANGALAM DRUGS & ORGANICS LTD. 2 OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDERS PASSED U/S. 143(3) R.W.S. 147 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961, FOR ASSESSMENT YEARS 2007-08, 2008-09, 2009-1 0 AND 2010-11. THE ASSESSEE HAS ALSO RAISED CROSS-OBJECTIONS IN ALL THESE YEARS . SINCE IDENTICAL ISSUE IS INVOLVED IN THE APPEALS AND THE CROSS-OBJECTIONS, WE SHALL PASS A CONSOLIDATED ORDER FOR THE SAKE OF CONVENIENCE AND BREVITY. ITA 5273/MUM/2016 FOR A.Y. 2007-08 2. THE REVENUE HAS RAISED THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS OF APPEAL :- 1. ON THE FACTS AND THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW, THE LD. CIT(A) ERRED IN HOLDING THAT THE STATEMENT RECORDED AND RELIED HAS NO INDEPENDENT EVIDENTIAL VALUE, EVEN WHEN IN FACT THE RE WERE RECORDED ON OATH UNDER SECTION 131(1) OF THE I.T.ACT CONFRONTIN G VARIOUS MATERIALS AVAILABLE.' 2. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CA SE AND IN LAW, THE LD. CIT (A) ERRED IN DELETING THE ADDITION OF RS.3,31,3 8,210/- ON ACCOUNT OF BOGUS PURCHASE U/S.69C OF THE ACT MADE BY THE ASSES SING OFFICER, STATING THAT THE ADDITION BASED ONLY ON THE STATEMENT RECOR DED WITHOUT FINDING ANY OTHER TANGIBLE EVIDENCE DURING SURVEY IS NOT JU STIFIABLE, WITHOUT APPRECIATING THE FACTS BROUGHT ON RECORD DURING ASS ESSMENT PROCEEDINGS BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER.' 3. 'ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CA SE AND IN LAW, THE LD. CIT (A) ERRED IN DELETING THE ADDITION OF RS.3,31,3 8,210/- ON ACCOUNT OF BOGUS PURCHASE U/S.69C OF THE ACT MADE BY THE ASSES SING OFFICER, STATING THAT THE ADDITION BASED ONLY ON THE STATEMENT RECOR DED IS NOT JUSTIFIABLE, AND RELYING ON SUPREME COURT DECISION IN CIT SALEM V/S. S. KHADER KHAN WHEN THE FACTS OF THE INSTANT CASE ARE DISTINGUISHA BLE SINCE STATEMENT IN ASSESSEE'S CASE IS RECORDED U/S.131 AND NOT RECORDE D U/S.!33(A) AS IN THE CASE RELIED UPON.' 4. 'ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE C ASE AND IN LAW, THE LD.CLT(A) ERRED IN IGNORING THE VARIOUS ADMISSIONS MADE U/S.131(1) DURING THE COURSE OF SURVEY SPECIFICALLY ACCEPTING SPECIFIC TRANSACTIONS.'' THE ONLY ISSUE RAISED BY THE REVENUE IN ALL THE GRO UNDS OF APPEAL IS AGAINST THE DELETION OF THE ADDITION OF ` 3,31,38,210/- BY THE CIT(A) AS MADE BY THE AO ON ACCOUNT OF BOGUS PURCHASE U/S. 69C OF THE ACT. MANGALAM DRUGS & ORGANICS LTD. 3 3. THE FACTS IN BRIEF ARE THAT THE ASSESSEE FILED I TS RETURN OF INCOME FOR A.Y. 2007-08 ON 29.10.2007 DECLARING INCOME OF ` 13,89,826/- UNDER REGULAR PROVISIONS OF THE ACT AND ` 66,32,682/- UNDER THE SPECIAL PROVISIONS U/S. 115J B OF THE ACT. THEREAFTER, THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE WAS REOPENED B Y ISSUING NOTICE U/S 148 OF THE ACT ON 31.03.2014 AFTER RECORDING REASONS THAT INCO ME OF THE ASSESSEE HAS ESCAPED ASSESSMENT DUE TO THE FACT THAT ASSESSEE HAS MADE B OGUS PURCHASES FROM THREE PARTIES VIZ. CHIRAG TRIPS PVT LTD., SAI KRIPA METAL IC TRADECOM LTD. AND SHRADDHA SABURI MERCHANTS LTD. TO THE TUNE OF ` 3,31,38,210/- THE SAID INFORMATION WAS RECEIVED BY THE AO FROM SALES TAX DEPARTMENT, GOVER NMENT OF MAHARASHTRA AND ALSO FROM DGIT -INVESTIGATION WING OF MUMBAI. A SU RVEY U/S. 133A OF THE ACT WAS CONDUCTED ON MANGALAM DRUGS & ORGANICS LTD. (ASSESS EE) ON 27.08.2013 AT THREE DIFFERENT PLACES AS MENTIONED IN PAGE 2 OF THE ASSE SSMENT ORDER. PERTINENT TO MENTION THAT THE ASSESSEE COMPANY IS ENGAGED IN THE BUSINESS OF MANUFACTURING OF CHEMICALS SUCH AS ACTIVE PHARMA INGREDIENTS, INTERM EDIATES AND SPECIALITY CHEMICALS. A SURVEY ACTION WAS CARRIED OUT ON THE ASSESSEE IN ORDER TO VERIFY WHETHER THE ASSESSEE IS ENGAGED IN PROCURING BOGUS PURCHASE BILLS. THE INVESTIGATION WING OF THE MUMBAI UNIT OBSERVED THAT ASSESSEE HAS OBTAINED BOGUS BILLS FROM HAWALA PARTIES TO INFLATE ITS TURNOVER W ITH PRIMARY MOTIVE OF ENHANCING ITS BANK CREDIT LIMITS. IT WAS ALSO FOUND THAT ASSESSE E HAS TAKEN ACCOMMODATING ENTRIES OF BOGUS CAPITAL EXPENDITURE FROM HAWALA DE ALERS IN ORDER TO CLAIM HIGHER DEPRECIATION. DURING THE COURSE OF SURVEY, A STATE MENT WAS RECORDED OF SHRI GOVARDHAN M DHOOT, MANAGING DIRECTOR OF THE ASSESSE E COMPANY AND SHRI AJAY SAMANT, VP FINANCE, ADMITTED THAT ASSESSEE HAS OBTA INED BOGUS BILLS TO THE TUNE OF ` 3,31,38,210/- IN THE CURRENT FINANCIAL YEAR. DURI NG THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT MANGALAM DRUGS & ORGANICS LTD. 4 PROCEEDINGS, ASSESSEE WAS CALLED UPON TO PROVE THE GENUINENESS OF ITS PURCHASE BY FILING BILLS, VOUCHERS AND VARIOUS OTHER EVIDENCES, WHICH WERE FILED BY THE ASSESSEE. HOWEVER, THE AO TREATED THE PURCHASE AS NON-GENUINE ON THE BASIS OF EVIDENCE GATHERED DURING THE COURSE OF SURVEY PROCEEDINGS AN D STATEMENT RECORDED DURING SURVEY AND ADDED THE ENTIRE PURCHASE OF ` 3,31,38,210/- AS UNEXPLAINED EXPENDITURE U/S. 69C OF THE ACT. 4. IN THE APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS, THE LEARNED CIT(A) AFTER CONSIDERING THE SUBMISSIONS AND CONTENTIONS AS MADE BY THE ASSESSEE , PARTLY ALLOWED THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE. THE LEARNED CIT(A) DISMISSED THE AP PEAL ON TECHNICAL GROUND BY UPHOLDING THE REOPENING, HOWEVER, THE ADDITION WAS DELETED ON MERIT BY OBSERVING AS UNDER: 7. DECISION GROUND NO. 4 & 5 I HAVE GONE THROUGH THE ASSESSMENT ORDER DATED 30.0 3.2015, AS WELL AS VARIOUS SUBMISSIONS AND THE ENTIRE PAPER BOOK FILED DURING THE APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS, WHEREIN THE AO HAS ADDED A SUM OF RS. 3,31,38,2100/- U/S. 69C AS UNEXPLAINED EXPENDITURE ALONGWITH RETURN OF INCOME OF RS. 13,89,826/- AND FINALLY ARRIVED AT THE TOTAL INCOME OF RS. 3,45,28,040/- STATING THE REASONS THAT THE APPELLANT COMPANY HAS OBTAINED ACCOMMODATION ENTRIES FROM THREE HAWALA PARTIES M/. SHRADDHA SABURI MERCHANTS LTD., M/S. SAI KRIPA METALIC TRADECOM LTD . AND M/S. CHIRAG SRIPS PVT. LTD. TO THE EXTENT OF RS. 3,31,38,210/-. SR. NO. NAME F.Y. 2006 - 07 1. M/S. CHIRAG TRIPS PVT. LTD. 1,50,70,973/ - 2. M/S. SAI KRIPA METALIC TRADECOM LTD. 1,00,11,2807 - 3. M/S. SHRADDHA SABURI MERCHANTS LTD. 80,55,957/ - TOTAL AMOUNT 3,31,38,210/ - MANGALAM DRUGS & ORGANICS LTD. 5 FURTHER THE ASSESSING OFFICER HIGHLY RELIED ON THE STATEMENT RECORDED DURING THE COURSE OF SURVEY ON .27.08.2013 AND 28.0 8.2013 OF SHRI GOVARDHAN M. DHOOT, DIRECTOR, MANGALAM DRUGS & ORGA NICS LTD. FURTHER THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS RELIED ON THE FOL LOWING JUDICIAL DECISIONS:- I. APEX COURT IN PULLANGODE RUBBER PRODUCE CO. LTD . V. STATE OF KERALA (197) 911 ITR 18(SC) II. DR. S C GUPTA V. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME- TAX (2001) 248 ITR 782 III. HONTALE MADRAS HIGH COURT IN THE CASE O F T S KUMARSWAMY VS. ACIT ON THE OTHER HAND, THE AR OF THE APPELLANT COMPANY HAS ARGUED THAT THERE WAS A SURVEY CARRIED OUT U/S. 133A OF THE INC OME TAX ACT, 1961 IN THE COMPANY'S PREMISES AS UNDER : SR. NO. ADDRESS OF THE PREMISES 1 292, PRINCESS STREET, 2 ND FLOOR, NEAR FLYOVER, MARINE LINES, MUMBAI 400 002 2 UNIT I, PLOT NO. 187, GIDC, VAPI, GUJARAT 396195 3 UNIT II PLOT NO. 1203, GIDC, VAPI, GUJARAT 396195 ON COMPLETION OF THE SURVEY, STATEMENTS WERE RECORD ED FROM SHRI GOVARDHAN DHOOT AND OTHER EMPLOYEES REGARDING THE M ODUS OPERAND! PURCHASE OF MACHINERY ETC. AFTER THE END OF THE SUR VEY, THE DEPARTMENT HAS NOT BROUGHT OUT TANGIBLE EVIDENCE FOR, SUCH ALL EGED BOGUS PURCHASE EXCEPT THE STATEMENTS RECORDED AT THE TIME OF SURVE Y FROM GOVARDHAN DHOOT ARID OTHER EMPLOYEES AND FURTHER THE AR OF TH E APPELLANT RELIED ON THE FOLLOWING JUDICIAL DECISIONS : A.CIT, SALEM VS. S.KHADER KHAN SON, APPEAL (CIVIL) NOS. 13224 OF 2008 & 6747 OF 2012 B. MUMBAI ITAT IN THE CASE OF MARUTI IMPEX 2016(5) TMI 104) C. GLOBAL STOCK 4DTR 172, MUMBAI D. MUMBAI BENCH K G SHARMA 133 ITD 112 E. APEX CURT IN THE CASE OF K R VERGHIS 131 ITR 597 F. LALCHAND BHAGAT 37 ITR 288 (SC) MANGALAM DRUGS & ORGANICS LTD. 6 G. SHIVA KAMI CO. 159 ITR 71 WHERE THEIR LORDSHIP D ISAPPROVED THE SYSTEM OF MAKING ADDITIONS IN THE ASSESSMENT ON ME RE SUSPICISION AND SURMISES. I HAVE GONE THROUGH THE CIT SELAM VS. S KHADER KHAN SON JUDICIAL DECISION WHEREIN THE HON'BLE SUPREME COURT HAS GIVE N THE FOLLOWING FINDINGS : 'SECTION 133A OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 - SURVEY - WHETHER SECTION 133A DOES NOT EMPOWER ANY JTO TO EXAMINE ANY PERSON ON OATH; SO STATEMENT RECORDED UNDER SECTION 133A HAS NO EVIDEN TIARY VALUE AND ANY ADMISSION MADE DURING SUCH STATEMENT CANNOT BE MADE BASIS OF ADDITION - HELD, YES (IN FAVOUR OF ASSESSEE) THE MAIN ALLEGATION OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS THA T THE APPELLANT COMPANY OBTAINED BOGUS ENTRIES WITH REGARD TO THE P URCHASE ON ACCOUNT OF REPAIR AND MAINTENANCE THROUGH HAWALA PARTIES. S URVEY WAS CARRIED OUT AT THE OFFICE PREMISES AT MARINE LINES, MUMBAI AND ALSO FACTORY PREMISES AT VAPI IN GUJARAT UNIT I & II. I HAVE ALS O GONE THROUGH SURVEY REPORT DTD. 26.03.2014 WHEREIN ALSO THE MAIN FOCUS IS ON THE SWORN STATEMENT RECORDED FROM SHRI GOVARDHAN DHOOT FOR MA KING THE ADDITION OF RS. 3,31,38,210/- WHEREAS NO OTHER ADVERSE REMAR K GIVEN BY DDIT(INV.) UNIT 1(3), MUMBAI AND ALSO NO OTHER INCR IMINATING MATERIALS/TANGIBLE EVIDENCE FOUND AT THE TIME OF SU RVEY PROCEEDINGS. CONSIDERING ALL THE FACTS OF THE RECORD, SURVEY REP ORT DTD. 26.03.2016 OF DDIT(INV) AND ALSO RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE HON'B LE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT, SALEM VS. S KHADER KHANS SONS, I A M OF THE CONSIDERED OPINION THAT THE ADDITION OF RS. 3,31,38,210/- BASE D ON THE STATEMENT RECORDED FROM SHRI GOVARDHAN DHOOT ALONE IS NOT JUS TIFIABLE ONE AND ACCORDINGLY I DIRECT THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO DELET E THE ADDITION OF RS. 3,31,38,210/-. HENCE THIS GROUND OF APPEAL IS ALLOWED. 5. THE LEARNED DR SUBMITTED BEFORE THE BENCH THAT T HE ORDER PASSED BY LEARNED CIT(A) DELETING THE ADDITION ON MERIT IS WRONG AS T HE LEARNED CIT(A) HAS IGNORED ALL THE EVIDENCES ON RECORD. HE FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE WAS REOPENED AFTER SPECIFIC INFORMATION RECEIVED QUA TH E FACT THAT THE ASSESSEE IS ENGAGED IN OBTAINING ENTRIES OF BOGUS BILLS FROM HA WALA PARTIES TO SUPPRESS ITS PROFITS. THE FACT WAS CORROBORATED DURING THE COUR SE OF SURVEY CONDUCTED ON THE ASSESSEE AT THREE PLACES AND ALSO REINFORCED BY THE STATEMENT OF SHRI GOVARDHAN M MANGALAM DRUGS & ORGANICS LTD. 7 DHOOT , MD, RECORDED DURING THE COURSE OF SURVEY, W HO CLEARLY ADMITTED TO HAVE MADE BOGUS ENTRIES TO THE EFFECT OF ` 3,31,38,210/-. MOREOVER, DURING THE RE- ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS U/S. 147, THE ASSESSEE COULD NOT PROVE THE GENUINENESS OF THESE PURCHASES AND, THEREFORE, THE BOGUS PURCHASES WERE ADDED TO THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE BY THE AO. HOWEVER, THE CIT(A) BY REL YING ON THE DECISION OF CIT VS. S KHADER KHAN & SONS (SUPRA), HELD THAT ADDITION CA NNOT BE SUSTAINED MERELY ON THE BASIS OF STATEMENT RECORDED DURING THE COURSE O F SURVEY WHEN THE AO HAS FAILED TO BRING ON RECORD ANY TANGIBLE MATERIAL TO SUPPORT THE ADMISSION IN THE STATEMENT THAT ASSESSEE IS ENGAGED IN PROCURING BOGUS BILLS F ROM HAWALA PARTIES. THE LEARNED DR, THEREFORE CONTENDED THAT THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A ) MAY BE REVERSED AND THAT OF THE AO BE RESTORED. 6. THE LEARNED AR, ON THE OTHER HAND, RELIED ON THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A) AND SUBMITTED THAT THE ADDITION WAS MADE ONLY ON THE BA SIS OF STATEMENT RECORDED DURING THE COURSE OF SURVEY AND SUCH STATEMENT WAS NOT CORROBORATED OR BACKED WITH ANY EVIDENCE OR MATERIALS WHATSOEVER BY THE A O DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS. THE LEARNED AR SUBMITTED T HAT ADDITION PURELY ON THE BASIS OF THE STATEMENT RECORDED DURING SURVEY U/S. 133A OF THE ACT CANNOT BE A BASIS FOR MAKING ADDITION UNLESS THERE IS INCRIMINA TING MATERIAL FOUND DURING THE COURSE OF SURVEY OR BROUGHT BY THE AO DURING THE AS SESSMENT PROCEEDINGS. HE THEREFORE PRAYED THAT THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A) IS VE RY REASONED ORDER AND PASSED ON THE BASIS OF CIT V. S KHADER KHAN SON (SUPRA) AND, THEREFORE, THE ORDER OF CIT(A) MAY BE UPHELD BY DISMISSING THE APPEAL OF THE REVEN UE. MANGALAM DRUGS & ORGANICS LTD. 8 7. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND PERUSED THE RECORD INCLUDING THE DECISIONS CITED BY THE PARTIES. WE OBSERVED THAT I N THIS CASE SURVEY WAS CONDUCTED ON THE THREE BUSINESS PREMISES OF THE ASSESSEE IN O RDER TO VERIFY WHETHER THE ASSESSEE WAS ENGAGED IN PROCURING BOGUS HAWALA PURC HASES FROM CERTAIN PARTIES, AS MENTIONED AT PAGE 2 OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER. THE C ASE OF THE ASSESSEE WAS RE- OPENED AFTER RECEIVING INFORMATION FROM SALES TAX A UTHORITIES, GOVERNMENT OF MAHARASHTRA AND DDIT - INVESTIGATION WING, MUMBAI, THE ASSESSEE IS A BENEFICIARY OF HAWALA TRANSACTIONS TO THE TUNE OF ` 3,31,38,210/-. WE FIND FROM THE PERUSAL OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER THAT AO HAS NOT BROUGHT ANY MA TERIAL ON RECORD TO CORROBORATE THE FACT THAT ASSESSEE HAS PROCURED BOG US PURCHASE BILLS FROM HAWALA PARTIES AND AO HAS MERELY RELIED ON THE STATEMENT O F SHRI GOVARDHAN M DHOOT, DIRECTOR OF THE ASSESSEE COMPANY THAT IT HAS PROCUR ED BOGUS PURCHASES BILLS TO THE ABOVE EXTENT. IN OUR OPINION, THE CASE OF THE ASSE SSEE IS SQUARELY COVERED BY THE DECISION OF HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF CI T V. S KHADER KHAN SON (SUPRA), WHEREIN IT HAS BEEN HELD THAT NO ADDITION CAN BE MA DE ON THE BASIS OF MERE STATEMENT RECORDED DURING THE COURSE OF SURVEY UNLE SS THERE IS CORROBORATIVE MATERIAL BROUGHT ON RECORD BY THE AO. UNDER THESE CIRCUMSTANCES, WE ARE FULLY IN AGREEMENT WITH THE CONCLUSION DRAWN BY THE CIT(A) T HAT ADDITION CANNOT BE SUSTAINED ON THE BASIS OF STATEMENT OF DIRECTORS RE CORDED DURING THE COURSE OF SURVEY. ACCORDINGLY, THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A) IS UP HELD AND APPEAL IS DISMISSED. 8. THE CROSS OBJECTION IN CO NO.41/MUM/2018 FOR A.Y. 2007-08 , THE ASSESSEE HAS CHALLENGED THE RE-OPENING OF ASSESSMEN T ON THE GROUND THAT THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE HAS BEEN INVALIDLY RE-OPENED. MANGALAM DRUGS & ORGANICS LTD. 9 9. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL PARTIES AND PERUSED THE MATERIAL ON RECORD. WE FIND THAT IN THIS CASE THE INFORMATION RECEIVED BY THE A O FROM SALES TAX DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT OF MAHARASHTRA AND ALSO FROM DDIT- INVES TIGATION WING, MUMBAI, WAS SPECIFIC THAT ASSESSEE HAS BEEN BENEFICIARY OF BOGU S PURCHASE ENTRIES FROM THREE DIFFERENT PARTIES AND ONLY THEREAFTER THE CASE OF T HE ASSESSEE WAS RE-OPENED U/S. 147 R.W.S. 148 OF THE ACT, AFTER FOLLOWING DUE PROC EDURE OF LAW. IN OUR OPINION, WE DO NOT FIND ANY INFIRMITY IN THE RE-OPENING OF ASSE SSMENT AND, ACCORDINGLY, WE ARE INCLINED TO DISMISS THE CROSS-OBJECTION OF THE ASSE SSEE. 10. FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASES ARE IDENTI CAL FOR ALL THE ASSESSMENT YEARS UNDER APPEAL. THEREFORE, OUR FINDING IN THE APPEAL AND CROSS-OBJECTION FOR A.Y 2007-08 IN THE EARLIER PARAS SHALL APPLY, MUTATIS M UTANDIS, IN THE A.YS. 2008-09, 2009-10 AND 2010-11 ALSO. 11. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEALS AS WELL AS THE CROSS -OBJECTIONS ARE DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON THIS DAY OF 1 6 TH MAY, 2019. SD/- SD/- (RAM LAL NEGI) (RAJESH KUMAR) JUDICIAL MEMBER A CCOUNTANT MEMBER MUMBAI, DATED : 16 TH MAY, 2019. SA COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. THE APPELLANT. 2. THE RESPONDENT. 3. THE C I T(A), MUMBAI. 4. THE C I T 5. THE DR, C BENCH, ITAT, MUMBAI BY ORDER //TRUE COPY// (ASSISTANT REGISTRAR) INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, MUMBAI