ITO 28(1)(1), MUMBAI V. ANIL NARAYAN LOKRE (PROP. ANIL TRADING CO.), MUMBAI

ITA 6394/MUM/2018

• Counselvise Citation: [2019] 112 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 3199 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 28 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 03-12-2019
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Assessment Year: 2009-2010
• Appeal Filed On: 05-11-2018
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: R BHOOPATHILD
• Keywords: Bogus purchase
• Section: 143(3); 142(1); 143(2); 148

Judgement Text

ITA NO.6394/MUM/2018 ANIL NARAYAN LOKRE ASSESSMENT YEAR :2009-10 1 - IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL SMC BENCH, MUMBAI . . , , BEFORE HONBLE SHRI C.N. PRASAD, JM AND HONBLE SHRI MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL, AM ./ I.T.A. NO.6394/MUM/2018 ( / ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2009-10 ) INCOME TAX OFFICER - 28 (1)(1) ROOM NO.329, 3 RD FLOOR TOWER NO.6, VASHI RAILWAY STATION COMPLEX, VASHI NAVI MUMBAI-400 705. / VS. ANIL NARAYAN LOKRE D-3/13, NILGIRI CO-OP. HSG. SOC. PLOT NO.282, SECTOR-23 JUINAGAR (W) NAVI MUMBAI-400 706. ! ./ ./PAN/GIR NO. AAPPL-1426-L ( !# /APPELLANT ) : ( $!# / RESPONDENT ) ASSESSEE BY : NONE REVENUE BY : SHRI R. BHOOPATHI-LD. DR / DATE OF HEARING : 03/12/2019 / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 03/12/2019 / O R D E R MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) 1. AFORESAID APPEAL BY REVENUE FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR [IN SHORT REFERRED TO AS AY] 2009-10 CONTEST THE ORDER OF LD. COMMIS SIONER OF INCOME- TAX (APPEALS)-26, MUMBAI, [IN SHORT REFERRED TO AS CIT(A)], APPEAL NO. CIT(A)-26/IT/232/2015-16 DATED 14/08/2018. IT IS EV IDENT FROM GROUNDS ITA NO.6394/MUM/2018 ANIL NARAYAN LOKRE ASSESSMENT YEAR :2009-10 2 OF APPEAL THAT THE SOLE ISSUE THAT ARISES FOR OUR C ONSIDERATION IS ADDITION ON ACCOUNT OF ALLEGED BOGUS PURCHASES. 2. NONE HAS APPEARED FOR ASSESSEE AND NO VALID ADJO URNMENT APPLICATION IS ON RECORD. LEFT WITH NO OPTION, THE MATTER IS PROCEEDED WITH EX-PARTE QUA THE ASSESSEE ON THE BASIS OF MATERIAL ON RECORD AND AFTER HEARING LEARNED DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE, WHO SU PPORTED THE ORDER OF LD. AO. 3.1 FACTS ON RECORD WOULD REVEAL THAT THE ASSESSEE BEING RESIDENT INDIVIDUAL STATED TO BE ENGAGED IN MANUFACTURING OF TRANSFORMERS UNDER PROPRIETORSHIP CONCERN NAMELY ANIL TRADING CO., WAS ASSESSED FOR IMPUGNED AY U/S. 143(3) R.W.S. 147 ON 03/03/2015 WH EREIN THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE WAS DETERMINED AT RS.7.55 LACS AFTE R ADDITION OF ALLEGED BOGUS PURCHASES FOR RS.2.00 LACS AS AGAINST RETURNE D INCOME OF RS.4.90 LACS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE ON 29/09/2009 WH ICH WAS PROCESSED U/S.143(1). 3.2 PURSUANT TO RECEIPT OF CERTAIN INFORMATION FROM DGIT (INVESTIGATION), MUMBAI, IT TRANSPIRED THAT THE ASSESSEE OBTAINED BO GUS PURCHASES BILLS AGGREGATING TO RS.8.01 LACS FROM 3 ENTITIES, THE DE TAILS OF WHICH HAVE ALREADY BEEN EXTRACTED AT PAGE-1 OF THE QUANTUM ASS ESSMENT ORDER. ACCORDINGLY, THE CASE WAS REOPENED AS PER DUE PROCE SS OF LAW VIDE ISSUANCE OF NOTICE U/S 148 ON 25/03/2014 WHICH WAS FOLLOWED BY STATUTORY NOTICES U/S 143(2) & 142(1) WHEREIN THE A SSESSEE WAS DIRECTED TO SUBSTANTIATE THE PURCHASE TRANSACTIONS. 3.3 ALTHOUGH THE ASSESSEE DEFENDED THE PURCHASES BY FILING VARIOUS DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCES, BUT NOTICES ISSUED U/S 133(6 ) TO CONFIRM THE TRANSACTIONS, DID NOT ELICIT SATISFACTORY RESPONSE. THE ASSESSEE FAILED TO ITA NO.6394/MUM/2018 ANIL NARAYAN LOKRE ASSESSMENT YEAR :2009-10 3 PRODUCE ANY OF THE SUPPLIERS TO CONFIRM THE TRANSAC TIONS. THE FACTUAL MATRIX LED LD. AO TO DISBELIEVE THE SAID TRANSACTIO NS AND ACCORDINGLY, THE ASSESSEE WAS SADDLED WITH ESTIMATED ADDITIONS TO TH E EXTENT OF 25% OF THESE PURCHASES. 4. UPON FURTHER APPEAL, LEARNED FIRST APPELLATE AUT HORITY, FINDING THE ESTIMATION OF 25% TO BE ON THE HIGHER SIDE, REDUCED THE ESTIMATION TO 15%. AGGRIEVED, THE REVENUE IS UNDER FURTHER APPEAL BEFORE US. 5. AFTER CAREFUL CONSIDERATION, WE ARE OF THE CONSI DERED OPINION THAT THERE COULD BE NO SALE WITHOUT ACTUAL PURCHASE OF M ATERIAL KEEPING IN VIEW THE ASSESSEES NATURE OF BUSINESS. UNDISPUTEDL Y THE ASSESSEE WAS IN POSSESSION OF PRIMARY PURCHASE DOCUMENTS AND THE PAYMENTS TO THE SUPPLIERS WERE THROUGH BANKING CHANNELS. HOWEVER, A T THE SAME TIME, THE ASSESSEE FAILED TO PRODUCE ANY OF THE SUPPLIERS TO CONFIRM THE TRANSACTIONS. THE ONUS CASTED UPON ASSESSEE, IN THI S REGARD, REMAINED UNDISCHARGED. THEREFORE, THE SAID FACTUAL MATRIX WA S A FIT CASE FOR ESTIMATION OF INCOME AGAINST SUSPICIOUS PURCHASES M ADE BY THE ASSESSEE. KEEPING IN VIEW THE ASSESSEES NATURE OF BUSINESS, THE ESTIMATION OF 15% AS MADE BY LD. CIT(A) COULD NOT B E SAID TO BE UNREASONABLE FROM ANY ANGLE. THEREFORE, BY CONFIRMI NG THE SAME, WE DISMISS THE APPEAL. 6. RESULTANTLY, THE APPEAL STANDS DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 03 RD DECEMBER, 2019. SD/- SD/- (C.N. PRASAD) (MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL) / JUDICIAL MEMBER / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO.6394/MUM/2018 ANIL NARAYAN LOKRE ASSESSMENT YEAR :2009-10 4 MUMBAI; DATED : 03/12/2019 SR.PS, JAISY VARGHESE 6789:69 / COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. !# / THE APPELLANT 2. $!# / THE RESPONDENT 3. - ( ) / THE CIT(A) 4. - / CIT CONCERNED 5. ' , , / DR, ITAT, MUMBAI 6. 123 / GUARD FILE / BY ORDER, / (DY./ASSTT.REGISTRAR) , / ITAT, MUMBAI.