FORBES PHARM CHEM TECHNOLOGIES , MUMBAI V. ITO - WD- 27 (1)(4), MUMBAI

ITA 5473/MUM/2018

• Counselvise Citation: [2019] 115 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 8703 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 11 month(s) 15 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 11-09-2019
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Assessment Year: 2010-2011
• Appeal Filed On: 26-09-2018
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: ASHUTOSH RAJHANSLD
• Assessee Lawyers: MEHUL SHAHLD
• Keywords: Bogus purchase
• Section: 143(3); 142(1); 133(6); 201; 143(2); 148

Judgement Text

1 FORBES PHARM CHEM TECHNOLOGIES ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2010-11 - IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL SMC BENCH, MUMBAI , , BEFORE HONBLE SHRI MAHAVIR SINGH, JM AND HONBLE SHRI MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL, AM ./ I.T.A. NO.4971/MUM/2018 ( / ASSESSMENT YEAR:2010-11 ) INCOME TAX OFFICER - 27(1)(4) TOWER NO.6, 4 TH FLOOR ROOM NO.409, VASHI RLY. STATION COMPLEX, VASHI, NAVI MUMBAI. / VS. FORBES PHAR CHEM T E CHNOLOGIES 507, BUSINESS PARK TILAK ROAD, GHATKOPAR (EAST) MUMBAI-400 077. '# ./ ./PAN/GIR NO. AACFF-0558-L ( #% /APPELLANT ) : ( &'#% / RESPONDENT ) & ./ I.T.A. NO.5473/MUM/2018 ( / ASSESSMENT YEAR:2010-11 ) FORBES PHAR CHEM T ECHNOLOGIES 507, BUSINESS PARK TILAK ROAD, GHATKOPAR (EAST) MUMBAI-400 077. / VS. INCOME TAX OFFICER - 27(1)(4) TOWER NO.6, 4 TH FLOOR ROOM NO.409 VASHI RLY. STATION COMPLEX, VASHI NAVI MUMBAI. '# ./ ./PAN/GIR NO. AACFF-0558-L ( #% /APPELLANT ) : ( &'#% / RESPONDENT ) REVENUE BY : SHRI ASHUTOSH RAJHANS-LD.DR ASSESSEE BY : SHRI MEHUL SHAH-LD. AR / DATE OF HEARING : 11/09/2019 / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 11/09/2019 2 FORBES PHARM CHEM TECHNOLOGIES ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2010-11 / O R D E R PER BENCH: - 1. THESE CROSS-APPEALS FOE ASSESSMENT YEAR [AY] 201 0-11 CONTEST THE ORDER OF LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (APPEALS)-2 4 MUMBAI, [IN SHORT REFERRED TO AS CIT(A)], APPEAL NO. CIT(A)-24/IT-581/704/ITO- 27(1)(4)/2017-18 DATED 09/05/2018. THE ONLY ISSUE INVOLVED IN THE CR OSS- APPEALS IS ESTIMATION OF ADDITION ON ACCOUNT OF ALLEGED BOGUS PURCHASES. 2.1 FACTS ON RECORD WOULD REVEAL THAT THE ASSESSEE BEING RESIDENT FIRM STATED TO BE ENGAGED IN TRADING OF CHEMICAL & PHARM ACEUTICALS ITEMS, WAS ASSESSED FOR IMPUGNED AY U/S. 143(3) R.W.S. 147 ON 10/11/2015 WHEREIN THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE WAS DETERMINED AT RS.10. 26 LACS AFTER SOLE ADDITION OF ALLEGED BOGUS PURCHASES FOR RS.10.13 LACS AS AGAINST RETURNED INCOME OF RS.0.12 LACS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE ON 17/ 09/2010 WHICH WAS PROCESSED U/S.143(1). 2.2 PURSUANT TO RECEIPT OF CERTAIN INFORMATION FROM INVESTIGATION WING / SALES TAX DEPARTMENT, GOVT. OF MAHARASHTRA, IT TRAN SPIRED THAT THE ASSESSEE STOOD BENEFICIARY OF ALLEGED BOGUS PURCHASES TO THE TUNE OF RS.81.07 LACS FROM 4 PARTIES, THE DETAILS OF WHICH HAS ALREADY BE EN EXTRACTED AT PARA-5.1 OF THE QUANTUM ASSESSMENT ORDER. ACCORDINGLY, AS PE R DUE PROCESS OF LAW, RE-ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS WERE INITIATED AGAINST TH E ASSESSEE U/S 147 BY ISSUANCE OF NOTICE U/S 148 ON 19/03/2015. THE STATU TORY NOTICES U/S 143(2) & 142(1) WERE ISSUED IN DUE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PR OCEEDINGS WHEREIN THE ASSESSEE WAS DIRECTED TO SUBSTANTIATE THE PURCH ASE TRANSACTIONS. 3 FORBES PHARM CHEM TECHNOLOGIES ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2010-11 2.3 TO CONFIRM THE PURCHASES TRANSACTIONS, NOTICES U/S 133(6) WERE ISSUED TO ALL PARTIES, HOWEVER THE SAME REMAINED UN-RESPON DED TO OR WERE RETURNED BACK UNSERVED BY POSTAL AUTHORITIES WITH T HE REMARKS NOT KNOWN. ALTHOUGH THE ASSESSEE DEFENDED THE PURCHASES, HOWEV ER, COULD NOT PRODUCE ANY OF THE SUPPLIER TO CONFIRM THE PURCHASE TRANSACTIONS. THE ATTENTION WAS DRAWN TO THE FACT THAT THE PAYMENTS W ERE MADE THROUGH BANKING CHANNELS. HOWEVER, NOT SATISFIED, THE STATE D PURCHASES WERE TREATED AS NON-GENUINE PURCHASES AND AN ESTIMATED A DDITION OF 12.5% WAS MADE AGAINST THE STATED PURCHASES. THE LEARNED FIRS T APPELLATE AUTHORITY, INTER-ALIA, RELYING UPON THE DECISION OF THIS TRIBUNAL IN ASSES SEES OWN CASE FOR AY 2011-12 RESTRICTED THE ADDITIONS TO 6% WHICH HAS GIVEN RISE TO CROSS- APPEALS BEFORE US. 3. WE HAVE HEARD AND CONSIDERED THE ARGUMENTS OF RE SPECTIVE REPRESENTATIVES. 4. WE FIND THAT THE ESTIMATED ADDITION OF 6% IS IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE DECISION OF THIS TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF ASSESSEES SISTER CONCERN FOR AY 2011-12 ITA NO.5383/MUM/2014 ORDER DATED 27/04/2016 . NOTHING ON RECORD WOULD SUGGEST ANY CHANGE IN MATERIAL FACTS. THEREFORE, FINDING NO INFIRMITY IN THE IMPUGNED ORDER, WE DISMISS BOTH TH E APPEALS. 5. RESULTANTLY, BOTH THE APPEALS STAND DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 11 TH SEPTEMBER, 2019. SD/- SD/- (MAHAVIR SINGH) (MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL) / JUDICIAL MEMBER / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER 4 FORBES PHARM CHEM TECHNOLOGIES ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2010-11 MUMBAI; DATED : 11/09/2019 SR.PS:-JAISY VARGHESE #$ %$ / COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. #% / THE APPELLANT 2. &'#% / THE RESPONDENT 3. . ( ) / THE CIT(A) 4. . / CIT CONCERNED 5. /0 &)1 , 1 , / DR, ITAT, MUMBAI 6. 0234 / GUARD FILE / BY ORDER, / (DY./ASSTT.REGISTRAR) , / ITAT, MUMBAI.