SHRI. A SURENDRA KUMAR GAIADA, CHENNAI V. ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 3(2), CHENNAI

ITA 536/CHNY/2018

• Counselvise Citation: [2018] 118 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 9627 (ITAT-CHENNAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 9 month(s) 28 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 12-12-2018
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: C
• Assessment Year: 2014-2015
• Appeal Filed On: 14-02-2018
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: R CLEMENT RAMESH KUMAR IRS
• Assessee Lawyers: S SRINIRANJANI
• Keywords: Accommodation entries

Judgement Text

, , IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL C(SMC) BENCH : CHENNAI . . . , ! . '#'$ , % !& ' [BEFORE SHRI N.R.S. GANESAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI ABRAHAM P. GEORGE, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ] ./I.T.A. NO. 536/CHNY/2018 / ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2014-2015. SHRI. A. SURENDRA KUMAR GALADA, NO.10, NAGESWARAN ROAD, T. NAGAR, CHENNAI 600 017. VS. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE 3(2) CHENNAI. [PAN AASPS 3816Q] ( () / APPELLANT) ( *+() /RESPONDENT) / APPELLANT BY : MS. S. SRI NIRANJANI, ADVOCATE /RESPONDENT BY : MR. R. CLEMENT RAMESH KUMAR, IRS, ADDL. CIT. /DATE OF HEARING : 12-12-2018 ! /DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 12-12-2018 / O R D E R PER ABRAHAM P. GEORGE, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER IN THIS APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE, WHICH IS DIRECTED AGAINST AN ORDER DATED 08.12.2017 OF LD. COMMISSIO NER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS)-19, CHENNAI, IT IS AGGRIEVED ON AN ADDITI ON OF A7,09,963/- DISBELIEVING THE PURCHASES MADE FROM ONE M/S. AVI E XPORTS. 2. LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT ASSESS EE WAS A JEWELLER AND HAD EFFECTED PURCHASES AMONG OTHERS FROM ONE M/S. AVI EXPORTS, SURAT ALSO. ACCORDING TO THE LD. AUTHORISE D REPRESENTATIVE, ITA NO. 536/CHNY/18. :- 2 -: THERE WERE TWO PURCHASES MADE DURING THE RELEVANT P REVIOUS YEAR, ONE FOR A60,520/- ON 29.05.2013 AND ANOTHER A6,49,443/ - ON 13.07.2013. CONTENTION OF THE LD. AUTHORISED REPRESENTATIVE WAS THAT COPIES OF INVOICES AND LEDGER ACCOUNT OF THE PARTIES IN THE B OOKS OF THE ASSESSEE, WERE PRODUCED BEFORE THE LD. ASSESSING O FFICER. ACCORDING TO HER, THESE WERE DISBELIEVED FOR A REASON THAT AS SESSEE COULD NOT PRODUCE PROOF FOR PHYSICAL DELIVERY OF GOODS. ACCO RDING TO THE LD. AUTHORISED REPRESENTATIVE, ASSESSEE HAD RECORDED RE CEIPT OF THE MATERIAL IN ITS STOCK REGISTER. CONTENTION OF THE LD. AUTHORISED REPRESENTATIVE WAS THAT LOWER AUTHORITIES HAD RELIE D ON A STATEMENT RECORDED FROM ONE SHRI. RAJENDRA JAIN FOR DISBELIEV ING THE CLAIM. AS PER THE LD. AUTHORISED REPRESENTATIVE, ASSESSEE WAS NEVER GIVEN AN OPPORTUNITY FOR CROSS EXAMINING SHRI. RAJENDRA JAIN . CONTENTION OF THE LD. AUTHORISED REPRESENTATIVE WAS THAT JUST BECAUSE SHRI. RAJENDRA JAIN MENTIONED M/S. AVI EXPORTS AS ONE AMONG MANY CONCERNS WHICH WERE BEING RUN BY HIM OR HIS ASSOCIATES WOUL D NOT MEAN THAT PURCHASES, FOR WHICH ASSESSEE HAD FURNISHED MORE TH AN SUFFICIENT EVIDENCE, INCLUDING EVIDENCES FOR VAT PAYMENT, COUL D BE DISBELIEVED. IN ANY CASE, ACCORDING TO HER, ASSESSEE WAS NOT GIV EN AN OPPORTUNITY TO CROSS EXAMINE SHRI. RAJENDRA JAIN, WHOSE STATEME NTS WERE RELIED UPON BY THE LOWER AUTHORITIES FOR MAKING AN ADDITIO N. RELIANCE WAS PLACED ON A JUDGMENT OF HONBLE APEX COURT IN THE CASE OF PRINCIPAL ITA NO. 536/CHNY/18. :- 3 -: COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX VS. TEJUA ROHITKUMAR KAP ADIA, (2018) 94 TAXMANN.COM 325 . 3. PER CONTRA, LD. DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE SUBMIT TED THAT STATEMENT GIVEN BY SHRI. RAJENDRA JAIN CLEARLY DEMO NSTRATED ROUND TRIPPING TRANSACTIONS THROUGH ACCOMMODATION ENTRIES , NOT REPRESENTING ANY ACTUAL PURCHASE OR SALE. 4. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS AND PERUSE D THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW. TO A QUESTION FRO M THE BENCH, LD. AUTHORISED REPRESENTATIVE SUBMITTED THAT ASSESSEE W AS PROVIDED THE STATEMENT RECORDED FROM SHRI. RAJENDRA JAIN AND ASS ESSEE HAD NEVER REQUESTED A CROSS EXAMINATION OF SHRI. RAJENDRA JAI N, BEFORE THE LOWER AUTHORITIES. WE FIND FROM THE STATEMENT GIVEN BY S HRI. RAJENDRA JAIN ON 05.12.2013 THAT NAME OF M/S. AVI EXPORTS APPEARS AT MANY PLACES. IN HIS ANSWER TO QUESTION NO.7, THE SAID SHRI. RAJE NDRA JAIN HAD CLEARLY EXPLAINED THE EMAIL CORRESPONDENCE WITH M/S. AVI EX PORTS AT SL.NO.186 TO 215. THESE CLEARLY INDICATED THAT THE CONSIGNME NTS WERE NOT MEANT TO M/S. AVI EXPORTS BUT SOME OTHER IMPORTER. THAT APART, IN AN ANSWER TO QUESTION NO.9, SAID SHRI. RAJENDRA JAIN FURTHER STATED THAT SHRI. SURENDRA JAIN WHO WAS THE AUTHORIZED PERSON F OR M/S. AVI EXPORTS, WAS HIS BUSINESS PARTNER. THE STATEMENT R ECORDED FROM SHRI. RAJENDRA JAIN, IN OUR OPINION, CLEARLY SHOWS THAT THE PURCHASES CLAIMED BY THE ASSESSEE WERE BOGUS. ASSESSEE COULD NOT PRODUCE ANY ITA NO. 536/CHNY/18. :- 4 -: RECORD FOR TRANSPORTATION OF THE MATERIALS OR FOR THE ACTUAL PHYSICAL RECEIPT THEREOF. JUST BECAUSE PAYMENTS WERE EFFECTE D THROUGH BANKING CHANNEL OR INVOICES WERE RAISED BY ACCOMMODATION PR OVIDER WOULD NOT MEAN THAT THE CLAIM HAD TO BE ACCEPTED. NO DOUBT, THE LD. AUTHORISED REPRESENTATIVE HAS PLACED RELIANCE ON THE JUDGMENT OF HONBLE APEX COURT IN THE CASE OF TEJUA ROHITKUMAR KAPADIA, (SUPRA). HOWEVER IN THE SAID JUDGMENT, THEIR LORDSHIPS HAS CLEARLY MENT IONED THAT THE SELLER HAD CONFIRMED THE TRANSACTION. ON THE OTHER HAND, IN THE CASE BEFORE US, THERE IS NO SUCH CONFIRMATION FROM THE S ELLER. IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES, WE DO NOT FIND ANY REASON TO INTERFE RE WITH THE ORDERS OF THE LOWER AUTHORITIES. 5. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE STANDS D ISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED ON WEDNESDAY, THE 12TH DAY OF DE CEMBER, 2018, AT CHENNAI. SD/- SD/- ( . . . ' ) (N.R.S. GANESAN) / JUDICIAL MEMBER ( ! . '#'$ ) (ABRAHAM P. GEORGE) % / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER #$ / CHENNAI %& / DATED: 12TH DECEMBER,2018. KV &' ()*) / COPY TO: 1 . / APPELLANT 3. +,' / CIT(A) 5. )-. / / DR 2. / RESPONDENT 4. + / CIT 6. .01 / GF