VIJAG SKATES P.LTD, MUMBAI V. ITO 13(3)(3), MUMBAI

ITA 7349/MUM/2016

• Counselvise Citation: [2018] 119 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 2887 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 10 month(s) 19 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 02-11-2018
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: Not Allotted
• Assessment Year: 2011-2012
• Appeal Filed On: 13-12-2016
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Bogus purchase; Income from undisclosed sources; Peak credit; Retraction
• Section: 143(3); 133(6); 147; 131; 68; 148

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL BEFORE HONBLE HONBLE SHRI MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL, AM ( VIJAG SKATES PRIVATE LIMITED 41/42, SUMATINATH INDUSTRIAL ESTATE 2 ND FLOOR, DUMPING ROAD OFF.LINK ROAD, MALAD(WEST) MUMBAI-400 064 ( APPELLANT A SSESSEE RE VENUE DATE OF HEARING DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT PER MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) 1. AFORESAID APPEAL BY ASSESSEE FOR CONTEST THE ORDER OF THE LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME [CIT(A)], MUMBAI, APPEAL NO. DATED 09/09/2016 QUA IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL F BENCH, MUMBAI !'#$% &'%( , %( ) HONBLE SHRI SAKTIJIT DEY, JM SHRI MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL, AM I.T.A. NO.734 9/MUM/2016 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2011- 12 VIJAG SKATES PRIVATE LIMITED 41/42, SUMATINATH INDUSTRIAL ESTATE MALAD(WEST) VS. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 2 ND FLOOR, AAYKAR BHAVAN M.K.ROAD MUMBAI-400 020 PAN/GIR NO. AABCV-8450- B APPELLANT ) : ( *+ RESPONDENT SSESSEE BY : K.SHIVRAM & RAHUL HAKANI VENUE BY : RAJEEV K. GUBGOTRA, LD. DR $ DATE OF HEARING : 10/08/2018 $ / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 02/11/2018 O R D E R PER MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) AFORESAID APPEAL BY ASSESSEE FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR [AY] 20 THE ORDER OF THE LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME - TAX (APPEALS) APPEAL NO. CIT(A)-21/ITO- 13(3)(3)/IT QUA CONFIRMATION OF CERTAIN ADDITION U/S 68 AND ITA NO.7349/MUM/2016 VIJAG SKATES PVT.LTD ASSESSMENT YEAR-2011-12 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL %( ) , SHRI SAKTIJIT DEY, JM AND SHRI MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL, AM 9/MUM/2016 12 ) INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD - 13(3)(3) FLOOR, AAYKAR BHAVAN B RESPONDENT ) RAHUL HAKANI , LD.ARS GUBGOTRA, LD. DR ASSESSMENT YEAR [AY] 20 11-12 TAX (APPEALS) -21 13(3)(3)/IT -234/2015-16 ADDITION U/S 68 AND ADDITION AGAINST ALLEGED BOGUS PURCHASES BEFORE US ON 03/08/2018 READS AS UNDER: 1. THE LEARNED CIT(A) ERRED IN CONFIRMING ORDER OF A.O . MAKING ADDITION OF CASH DEPOSITS IN BANK ACCOUNT OF RS.55,54,310/ BANK ACCOUNT BEING SAVINGS ACCOUNT NO. 015801005548 IN NOT BELONG TO THE APPELLANT AND THAT THE ACCOUNT BE LONGED TO SHRI VIRAJ P. VAISHNAV AND MRS. MINAXI P. VAISHANV JOINTLY AND AL L THE ENTRIES IN THE SAID BANK ACCOUNT INCLUDING CASH DEPOSITS HAVE BEEN DULY DISCLOSED BY MRS. MINAXI P. VAISHNAV RS.55,54,310/- MAY BE DELETED. 1.1 THE LEARNED CIT(A) ERRED IN CONFIRMING ORDE R OF A.O. MAKING ADDITION OF CASH DEPOSITS IN BANK ACCOUNT OF RS.55,54,310/ 68 IS NOT APPLICABLE TO CASH DEPOSITS IN THIRD PARTY BANK ACCOUNT AND HENCE ADDITION U/S. 68 OF RS. 55,54,3107 1.2 WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO ABOVE, THE LEARNED CIT(A) ERRE D IN CONFIRMING ORDER OF A.O, MAKING ADDITION OF CASH DEPOSITS IN BANK ACCOU 68 WITHOUT APPRECIATING THAT THE ADDITION IF ANY HA S TO BE RESTRICTED TO PEAK CREDIT AND HENCE ADDITION U/S. 68 OF RS. 55,54,310/ 1 .3 WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO ABOVE, THE LEARNED CIT(A) ERRE D IN CONFIRMING ORDER OF A. O. MAKING ADDITION OF CASH DEPOSITS IN BANK ACCOUNT OF RS.55,54,310/ U/S.68 WITHOUT APPRECIATING THAT ADDITION OF ONLY P ROFIT EMBEDDED IN THE CASH DEPOSITS CAN BE MADE AND NOT THE ENTIRE CASH DEPOSI TS AND HENCE ADDITION U/S. 68 OF RS. 55,54,310/ 2. THE LEARNED CIT(A) ERRED IN CONFIRMING ADDITION OF ALLEGED BOGUS PURCHASE OF RS.8,23,071/- FROM M/S. PARAS ENTERPRISES U/S. 68 WITHOUT APPRECI ATING THAT ASSESSEE HAS PRODUCED INVOICES AND STOCK STATEMENT, PAYMENT IS MADE THROUGH BANKING CHAN ALLEGED BOGUS PURCHASE OF RS. 8,23,071/ 2.1 W ITHOUT PREJUDICE TO ABOVE, ENTIRE ADDITION OF PURCH ASES OF RS 8,23,071/ UNCALLED FOR AND ADDITION MAY BE RESTRICTED TO A RE ASONABLE ESTIM ALLEGED BOGUS PURCHASES. THE ASSESSMENT FOR IMPUGNED AY WAS FRAMED BY OFFICER-13(3)(3) , MUMBAI INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 ASSESSEE HAS BEEN ASSESSED AT AGAINST RETURNED INCOME OF RS. 31/12/2011 WHICH WAS PROCESSED U/S 143(1). ASSESSEE BEING RESIDENT CORPORATE MANUFACTURING AND SELLING OF ROLLER SKATES 2 ALLEGED BOGUS PURCHASES . REVISED ROUNDS AS BEFORE US ON 03/08/2018 READS AS UNDER: - THE LEARNED CIT(A) ERRED IN CONFIRMING ORDER OF A.O . MAKING ADDITION OF CASH DEPOSITS IN BANK ACCOUNT OF RS.55,54,310/ - WITHOUT APPRECIATING THAT SAID BANK ACCOUNT BEING SAVINGS ACCOUNT NO. 015801005548 IN NOT BELONG TO THE APPELLANT AND THAT THE ACCOUNT BE LONGED TO SHRI VIRAJ P. VAISHNAV AND MRS. MINAXI P. VAISHANV JOINTLY AND AL L THE ENTRIES IN THE SAID BANK ACCOUNT INCLUDING CASH DEPOSITS HAVE BEEN DULY DISCLOSED BY MRS. MINAXI P. VAISHNAV IN HER RETURN OF INCOME AND HENCE ADDITION U/S.68 O F MAY BE DELETED. 1.1 THE LEARNED CIT(A) ERRED IN CONFIRMING ORDE R OF A.O. MAKING ADDITION OF CASH DEPOSITS IN BANK ACCOUNT OF RS.55,54,310/ -- WITHOUT APPRECIATING THAT SECTION NOT APPLICABLE TO CASH DEPOSITS IN THIRD PARTY BANK ACCOUNT AND HENCE ADDITION U/S. 68 OF RS. 55,54,3107 - MAY BE DELETED. WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO ABOVE, THE LEARNED CIT(A) ERRE D IN CONFIRMING ORDER OF A.O, MAKING ADDITION OF CASH DEPOSITS IN BANK ACCOU NT OF RS.55,54,310/ 68 WITHOUT APPRECIATING THAT THE ADDITION IF ANY HA S TO BE RESTRICTED TO PEAK CREDIT AND HENCE ADDITION U/S. 68 OF RS. 55,54,310/ - MAY BE DELETED. WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO ABOVE, THE LEARNED CIT(A) ERRE D IN CONFIRMING ORDER OF O. MAKING ADDITION OF CASH DEPOSITS IN BANK ACCOUNT OF RS.55,54,310/ U/S.68 WITHOUT APPRECIATING THAT ADDITION OF ONLY P ROFIT EMBEDDED IN THE CASH DEPOSITS CAN BE MADE AND NOT THE ENTIRE CASH DEPOSI TS AND HENCE ADDITION U/S. 68 OF RS. 55,54,310/ - MAY BE DELETED. THE LEARNED CIT(A) ERRED IN CONFIRMING ADDITION OF ALLEGED BOGUS PURCHASE OF FROM M/S. PARAS ENTERPRISES U/S. 68 WITHOUT APPRECI ATING THAT ASSESSEE HAS PRODUCED INVOICES AND STOCK STATEMENT, PAYMENT IS MADE THROUGH BANKING CHAN NELS, SALES ARE NOT DOUBTED AND HENCE ADDITION OF ALLEGED BOGUS PURCHASE OF RS. 8,23,071/ - MAY BE DELETED. ITHOUT PREJUDICE TO ABOVE, ENTIRE ADDITION OF PURCH ASES OF RS 8,23,071/ UNCALLED FOR AND ADDITION MAY BE RESTRICTED TO A RE ASONABLE ESTIM ALLEGED BOGUS PURCHASES. THE ASSESSMENT FOR IMPUGNED AY WAS FRAMED BY LD. , MUMBAI [AO] U/S 143(3) READ WITH SECTION 147 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 ON 30 /03/2015 WHEREIN THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE HAS BEEN ASSESSED AT RS.66.79 LACS AFTER CERTAIN ADDITIONS AS AGAINST RETURNED INCOME OF RS. 3.02 LACS E-FILED BY THE ASSESSEE ON 31/12/2011 WHICH WAS PROCESSED U/S 143(1). DURING IMPUGNED AY, T RESIDENT CORPORATE ENTITY WAS ENGAGED IN THE BUSINESS OF MANUFACTURING AND SELLING OF ROLLER SKATES . THE NOTICE UNDER SECTION 148 ITA NO.7349/MUM/2016 VIJAG SKATES PVT.LTD ASSESSMENT YEAR-2011-12 REVISED ROUNDS AS FILED THE LEARNED CIT(A) ERRED IN CONFIRMING ORDER OF A.O . MAKING ADDITION OF CASH WITHOUT APPRECIATING THAT SAID BANK ACCOUNT BEING SAVINGS ACCOUNT NO. 015801005548 IN ICICI BANK DOES NOT BELONG TO THE APPELLANT AND THAT THE ACCOUNT BE LONGED TO SHRI VIRAJ P. VAISHNAV AND MRS. MINAXI P. VAISHANV JOINTLY AND AL L THE ENTRIES IN THE SAID BANK ACCOUNT INCLUDING CASH DEPOSITS HAVE BEEN DULY DISCLOSED BY MRS. IN HER RETURN OF INCOME AND HENCE ADDITION U/S.68 O F 1.1 THE LEARNED CIT(A) ERRED IN CONFIRMING ORDE R OF A.O. MAKING ADDITION OF CASH WITHOUT APPRECIATING THAT SECTION NOT APPLICABLE TO CASH DEPOSITS IN THIRD PARTY BANK ACCOUNT AND HENCE WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO ABOVE, THE LEARNED CIT(A) ERRE D IN CONFIRMING ORDER OF NT OF RS.55,54,310/ - U/S 68 WITHOUT APPRECIATING THAT THE ADDITION IF ANY HA S TO BE RESTRICTED TO PEAK MAY BE DELETED. WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO ABOVE, THE LEARNED CIT(A) ERRE D IN CONFIRMING ORDER OF O. MAKING ADDITION OF CASH DEPOSITS IN BANK ACCOUNT OF RS.55,54,310/ - U/S.68 WITHOUT APPRECIATING THAT ADDITION OF ONLY P ROFIT EMBEDDED IN THE CASH DEPOSITS CAN BE MADE AND NOT THE ENTIRE CASH DEPOSI TS AND HENCE ADDITION THE LEARNED CIT(A) ERRED IN CONFIRMING ADDITION OF ALLEGED BOGUS PURCHASE OF FROM M/S. PARAS ENTERPRISES U/S. 68 WITHOUT APPRECI ATING THAT ASSESSEE HAS PRODUCED INVOICES AND STOCK STATEMENT, PAYMENT IS MADE NELS, SALES ARE NOT DOUBTED AND HENCE ADDITION OF MAY BE DELETED. ITHOUT PREJUDICE TO ABOVE, ENTIRE ADDITION OF PURCH ASES OF RS 8,23,071/ - IS UNCALLED FOR AND ADDITION MAY BE RESTRICTED TO A RE ASONABLE ESTIM ATE OF LD. INCOME TAX READ WITH SECTION 147 OF THE /03/2015 WHEREIN THE INCOME OF THE LACS AFTER CERTAIN ADDITIONS AS BY THE ASSESSEE ON DURING IMPUGNED AY, T HE WAS ENGAGED IN THE BUSINESS OF . THE NOTICE UNDER SECTION 148 WAS ISSUED ON 14/02/2014 WHICH WAS FOLLOWED BY STAT UTORY NOTICES U/S 143(2) & 142(1). 2.1 PURSUANT TO INFORMATION RECEIVED FROM TAX (I & C), MUMBAI IT WA MADE IN ONE OF THE SAVINGS BANK ACCOUNT NO.158011005548 ICICI BANK, MALAD BRANCH. OF SHRI VIRAG P.VAISHNAV, HIS MOTHER MRS. MINAXI P.VAISHNAV 04/12/2011. ACCORDINGLY, STATEMENT UNDER OATH OF D IRECTOR WAS RECORDED U/S 131 ON 05/12/2013 WHEREIN IT WAS ADMITTED THAT THE CASH DEPOSIT REPRESENT ASSESSEE COMPANY. THE RELEVANT EXTRACT OF THE STATEMENT HAS ALREADY BEEN REPRODUCED ON PAGE NUMBERS 3 TO 6 ORDER. IT WAS ALSO NOTED THAT IN ROLLER SKATING AND COACH FOR AND INTERNATIONAL CO ACH KOREA ETC . T HE SAID CASH DEPOSIT, IN THE OPINION OF LD. AO, CON STITUTED CASH CREDIT WARRANTING ADDITION U/S 68. THE ASSESSEE, VID DATED 28/10/201 4, DEFENDED THE SAME ADDITION. IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT THE BANK ACCOUNT DID NOT BELO NG TO THE ASSESSEE AND SAID CASH DEPOSITS WERE ALREADY REFLEC TED IN RETURN OF INCOME OF MINAXI VAISHNAV THE STATEMENT. UPON PERUSAL OF BANK ACCOUNT, IT WAS NOTED THAT THE CORRECT AMOUNT OF THE DEPOSIT WAS RS.55.40 LACS INS TEAD OF RS.45.94 LACS. THE LD. AO, AFTER PERUSAL OF FINANCIAL STATEM ENTS / INCOME TAX RETURN OF SHRI VIRAG P.VAISHNAV & MRS. MINAXI P.VAISHNAV, 3 WAS ISSUED ON 14/02/2014 WHICH WAS FOLLOWED BY STAT UTORY NOTICES U/S PURSUANT TO INFORMATION RECEIVED FROM ADDITIONAL DIRECTOR OF INCOME IT WA S NOTED THAT CASH DEPOSIT OF RS.45.94 LACS WAS SAVINGS BANK ACCOUNT NO.158011005548 ICICI BANK, MALAD BRANCH. THE SAID BANK ACCOUNT WAS HELD IN THE NAME SHRI VIRAG P.VAISHNAV, DIRECTOR OF THE ASSESSEE COMPANY MRS. MINAXI P.VAISHNAV . THE ACCOUNT WAS ALREADY ACCORDINGLY, STATEMENT UNDER OATH OF SHRI VIRAG P.VAISHNAV IRECTOR WAS RECORDED U/S 131 ON 05/12/2013 WHEREIN IT WAS ADMITTED THAT THE CASH DEPOSIT REPRESENT ED SALE PROCEEDS / INCOME OF THE THE RELEVANT EXTRACT OF THE STATEMENT HAS ALREADY PAGE NUMBERS 3 TO 6 OF THE QUANTUM ASSESSMENT IT WAS ALSO NOTED THAT SHRI VIRAG P.VAISHNAV WAS A NATIONAL PLAYER AND COACH FOR UTAPAL SANGHVI SCHOOL, JUHU MUMBAI ACH FOR STUDENTS OF COUNTRIES LIKE HE SAID CASH DEPOSIT, IN THE OPINION OF LD. AO, CON STITUTED WARRANTING ADDITION U/S 68. THE ASSESSEE, VID 4, DEFENDED THE SAME AND CONTESTED THE PROPOSED IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT THE BANK ACCOUNT DID NOT BELO NG TO THE ASSESSEE AND SAID CASH DEPOSITS WERE ALREADY REFLEC TED IN RETURN OF MINAXI VAISHNAV FILED ON 28/03/2012 I.E. BEFORE RECORDING OF UPON PERUSAL OF BANK ACCOUNT, IT WAS NOTED THAT THE CORRECT AMOUNT OF THE DEPOSIT WAS RS.55.40 LACS INS TEAD OF RS.45.94 LACS. THE LD. AO, AFTER PERUSAL OF FINANCIAL STATEM ENTS / INCOME TAX SHRI VIRAG P.VAISHNAV & MRS. MINAXI P.VAISHNAV, ITA NO.7349/MUM/2016 VIJAG SKATES PVT.LTD ASSESSMENT YEAR-2011-12 WAS ISSUED ON 14/02/2014 WHICH WAS FOLLOWED BY STAT UTORY NOTICES U/S ADDITIONAL DIRECTOR OF INCOME OF RS.45.94 LACS WAS SAVINGS BANK ACCOUNT NO.158011005548 HELD WITH THE SAID BANK ACCOUNT WAS HELD IN THE NAME DIRECTOR OF THE ASSESSEE COMPANY , JOINTLY WITH ALREADY CLOSED ON SHRI VIRAG P.VAISHNAV , IRECTOR WAS RECORDED U/S 131 ON 05/12/2013 WHEREIN IT WAS ADMITTED PROCEEDS / INCOME OF THE THE RELEVANT EXTRACT OF THE STATEMENT HAS ALREADY OF THE QUANTUM ASSESSMENT WAS A NATIONAL PLAYER UTAPAL SANGHVI SCHOOL, JUHU MUMBAI FOR STUDENTS OF COUNTRIES LIKE FRANCE, SPAIN, HE SAID CASH DEPOSIT, IN THE OPINION OF LD. AO, CON STITUTED WARRANTING ADDITION U/S 68. THE ASSESSEE, VID E SUBMISSIONS AND CONTESTED THE PROPOSED IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT THE BANK ACCOUNT DID NOT BELO NG TO THE ASSESSEE AND SAID CASH DEPOSITS WERE ALREADY REFLEC TED IN RETURN OF FILED ON 28/03/2012 I.E. BEFORE RECORDING OF UPON PERUSAL OF BANK ACCOUNT, IT WAS NOTED THAT THE CORRECT AMOUNT OF THE DEPOSIT WAS RS.55.40 LACS INS TEAD OF RS.45.94 LACS. THE LD. AO, AFTER PERUSAL OF FINANCIAL STATEM ENTS / INCOME TAX SHRI VIRAG P.VAISHNAV & MRS. MINAXI P.VAISHNAV, CAME TO A CONCLUSION THAT THAT THE SAID BANK ACCOUNT WAS UNDISCLOSED ACCOUNT CASH DEPOSIT COULD NOT BE THE TWO JOINT HOLDERS OF THE ACCOUNT WAS OBSERVED IN ANOTHER BANK ACCOUNT HELD IN THE NAME OF THE ASSESS EE WITH ICICI BANK, MALAD CASH DEPOSIT OF RS.55.54 U/S 68. 2.2 ANOTHER ADDITION OF RS.8.23 LACS MADE IN THE QUANTU M ASSESSMENT ORDER PERTAINS TO ADDITIONS ON ACCOUNT OF PURSUANT TO RECEIPT OF CERTAIN INFORMATION FROM MAHARASHTRA IT WAS NOTED THAT THE ASSESSEE REFLECTED IM PURCHASES OF RS.8.23 LACS FROM ENTERPRISES. NOTICE U/S 133(6) SENT TO THE SAID PARTY TO CONFIRM THE TRANSACTIONS RETURNED BACK UNDELIVERED BY THE POSTA L AUTHORITIES WITH REMARKS LEFT. THE ASSESSEE ALSO FAILED REQUISITE DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCES WHICH LED THE LD. A O TO DISALLOW THE SAME AND CONSEQUENTLY INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE . 3. AGGRIEVED, THE ASSESSEE CONTESTED THE SAME WITHOUT ANY SUCCESS BEFORE LD. CIT(A) VIDE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 09/09/2 016 WHEREIN THE ADDITION U/S 68 HAS BEEN CONFIRMED I 4.6 I HAVE CONSIDERED THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE VIRAG P.VAISHNAV, DIRECTOR OF THE APP COMPANY. HE IS THE DIRECTOR OF THE APP BUSINESS AFFAIRS OF THE APP DEPOSITED IS IN THE NAME OF SHRI VIRAG P.VAISHNAV, JOINTLY WITH HIS MOTHER MRS. MEENAXI VAISHNAV. SHRI VIRAG P.VAISHNAV, DIRECTOR O F THE APP A STATEMENT RECORDED U/S 131, ADMITTED TO THE CASH DEPOSITS IN HIS SAVINGS ACCOUNT BEING UNACCOUNTED INCOME OF THE APP 4 THAT THE SAID BANK ACCOUNT WAS UNDISCLOSED ACCOUNT CASH DEPOSIT COULD NOT BE SUBSTANTIATED EITHER BY THE ASSESSEE THE TWO JOINT HOLDERS OF THE ACCOUNT . THE SIMILAR P ATTERN OF CASH DEPOSIT ANOTHER BANK ACCOUNT HELD IN THE NAME OF THE ASSESS EE ICICI BANK, MALAD . FINALLY, REJECTING THE VARIOUS SUBMISSIO CASH DEPOSIT OF RS.55.54 LACS WAS ADDED TO THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE ANOTHER ADDITION OF RS.8.23 LACS MADE IN THE QUANTU M ASSESSMENT ORDER PERTAINS TO ADDITIONS ON ACCOUNT OF ALLEGED BOGUS PURCHASES. CERTAIN INFORMATION FROM SALES TAX DEPARTMENT, IT WAS NOTED THAT THE ASSESSEE REFLECTED IM PURCHASES OF RS.8.23 LACS FROM A SUSPICIOUS ENTITY NAMELY NOTICE U/S 133(6) SENT TO THE SAID PARTY TO CONFIRM THE TRANSACTIONS RETURNED BACK UNDELIVERED BY THE POSTA L AUTHORITIES WITH THE ASSESSEE ALSO FAILED TO SU BSTANTIATE THE SAME WITH REQUISITE DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCES WHICH LED THE LD. A O TO DISALLOW THE SAME AND CONSEQUENTLY , THE SAID PURCHASES WERE ADDED BACK TO THE . AGGRIEVED, THE ASSESSEE CONTESTED THE SAME WITHOUT ANY SUCCESS BEFORE LD. CIT(A) VIDE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 09/09/2 016 WHEREIN THE ADDITION U/S 68 HAS BEEN CONFIRMED I N THE FOLLOWING MANNER: 4.6 I HAVE CONSIDERED THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE APPELLANT CAREFULLY. VIRAG P.VAISHNAV, DIRECTOR OF THE APP ELLANT COMPANY, IS NO STRANGER TO THE APP COMPANY. HE IS THE DIRECTOR OF THE APP ELLANT COMPANY AND THUS FULLY AWARE OF THE BUSINESS AFFAIRS OF THE APP ELLANT COMPANY. THE BANK ACCOUNT IN WHIC DEPOSITED IS IN THE NAME OF SHRI VIRAG P.VAISHNAV, JOINTLY WITH HIS MOTHER MRS. MEENAXI VAISHNAV. SHRI VIRAG P.VAISHNAV, DIRECTOR O F THE APP ELLANT A STATEMENT RECORDED U/S 131, ADMITTED TO THE CASH DEPOSITS IN HIS SAVINGS ACCOUNT BEING UNACCOUNTED INCOME OF THE APP ELLANT COMPANY. NO RETRACTION WAS FILED BY SHRI ITA NO.7349/MUM/2016 VIJAG SKATES PVT.LTD ASSESSMENT YEAR-2011-12 THAT THE SAID BANK ACCOUNT WAS UNDISCLOSED ACCOUNT AND ASSESSEE OR ANY OF ATTERN OF CASH DEPOSIT ANOTHER BANK ACCOUNT HELD IN THE NAME OF THE ASSESS EE VARIOUS SUBMISSIO NS, THE LACS WAS ADDED TO THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE ANOTHER ADDITION OF RS.8.23 LACS MADE IN THE QUANTU M ASSESSMENT ALLEGED BOGUS PURCHASES. SALES TAX DEPARTMENT, IT WAS NOTED THAT THE ASSESSEE REFLECTED IM PUGNED SUSPICIOUS ENTITY NAMELY PARAG NOTICE U/S 133(6) SENT TO THE SAID PARTY TO CONFIRM THE TRANSACTIONS RETURNED BACK UNDELIVERED BY THE POSTA L AUTHORITIES WITH BSTANTIATE THE SAME WITH REQUISITE DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCES WHICH LED THE LD. A O TO DISALLOW THE ADDED BACK TO THE AGGRIEVED, THE ASSESSEE CONTESTED THE SAME WITHOUT ANY SUCCESS BEFORE LD. CIT(A) VIDE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 09/09/2 016 WHEREIN THE N THE FOLLOWING MANNER: - CAREFULLY. IT IS SEEN THAT SHRI COMPANY, IS NO STRANGER TO THE APP ELLANT COMPANY AND THUS FULLY AWARE OF THE COMPANY. THE BANK ACCOUNT IN WHIC H CASH WAS DEPOSITED IS IN THE NAME OF SHRI VIRAG P.VAISHNAV, JOINTLY WITH HIS MOTHER MRS. ELLANT COMPANY, HAS IN A STATEMENT RECORDED U/S 131, ADMITTED TO THE CASH DEPOSITS IN HIS SAVINGS ACCOUNT COMPANY. NO RETRACTION WAS FILED BY SHRI VIRAG P.VAISHNAV TILL THE TIME OF THE ASSESSMENT OR DER WHICH INDICATES THAT THE STATEMENT RECORDED WAS IS ALSO N OTED THAT THE RELEVANT PURCHASES AND SALES BILL WER E NOT PRODUCED BEFORE THE AO AT THE TIME OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS IN RESPECT OF THE INCOME CLAIMED IN THE RETURN FILED BY SHRI VIRAG P.VAISHNAV AND MRS MEENA XI VAISHNAV. MRS. MEENAXI VAISHNAV CERTAINLY CO ULD NOT BE ACCEPTED TO HAVE DEPOSITED CASH ALL OVER THE COUNTRY CREDITED TO THE JOINT SAVINGS ACCOUNTS. NO CASH BOOK OR PURCHASE AND SALES BILL WERE PRODUCED BEFORE THE AO WHICH COULD HAVE S UPPORTED THE CLAIM CASH DEPOSITS IN THE SAVINGS BANK ACCOUNT REPRESENTED TH E INCOME OF MRS.MEENAXI VAISHNAV. THIS AMOUNT OF CA MEENAXI VAISHNAV OR SHRI VIRAG P.VAISHNAV AND HAS B EEN CLEARLY HELD AS INCOME OF THE APPELLANT COMP ANY ONLY. IT IS FURTHER NOTED THAT AS PER THE PROFI T & LOSS ACCOUNT OF MRS. MEENAXI VAISHNAV, THE SALES IS RS.15,11,027/ RS.10,59,526/- . THUS THERE CANNOT BE ANY BASIS TO CLAIM THAT THE WITHDRAWAL ON EARLIER OCCASION IS DEPOSITED AGAIN IN DEPOSIT REPRESENTS THE SALES SHOWN BY MRS. MEENAXI VAISHNAV WAS REALLY TRUE. THE RETURN FOR A.Y. 2011- 12 OF MRS. MEENAXI VAISHNAV WAS FILED ONLY ON 28.03 .2012 WHICH IS AFTER THE RETURN FILED BY THE APP SHEET WAS FILED ALONG WITH THE RETURN OF INCOME OF MRS. MEENAXI VAISHNAV. THE BANK STATEMENT SHOWS THE LOCATION OF THE CASH DEPOSITS W HICH ARE ALL OVER THE COUNTRY. THUS THESE FACTS CLEARLY INDICATE THAT CA BANK REPRESENTS THE UNACCOUNTED SALES OF THE ADDITIONS MADE BY THE AO IS UPHELD SUBJECT TO VERIF YING THE ACTUAL DEPOSIT OF CASH WHICH AS PER THE APPELLANT IS ONLY RS.55,40,678/ NO.2 IS DISMISSED. THE STAND OF LD. AO PURCHASES WAS ALSO CONFIRMED QUANTITATIVE DETAILS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE. AGGRIEV ED, THE FURTHER APPEAL BEFORE US. 4. THE LD. SENIOR COUNSEL ATTENTION TO THE DOCUMENTS PLACED IN THE ADDITIONS SUSTAINED BY LD. FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY W CONTROVERTED BY L D. DEPARTMENTAL R GUBGOTRA WHO SUBMITTED THAT THE ADDITIONS WERE JUSTIFIED SINCE T HE SAME HAS CATEGORICALLY BEEN ADMITTED BY THE DIRECTOR OF THE ASSESSEE. 5 VIRAG P.VAISHNAV TILL THE TIME OF THE ASSESSMENT OR DER WHICH INDICATES THAT THE STATEMENT RECORDED WAS TRUE AN D NOT UNDER ANY EXTRANEOUS INFLUENCE OF COERCION. OTED THAT THE RELEVANT PURCHASES AND SALES BILL WER E NOT PRODUCED BEFORE THE AO AT THE TIME OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS IN RESPECT OF THE INCOME CLAIMED IN THE RETURN FILED BY SHRI VIRAG P.VAISHNAV AND MRS MEENA XI VAISHNAV. MRS. MEENAXI ULD NOT BE ACCEPTED TO HAVE DEPOSITED CASH ALL OVER THE COUNTRY CREDITED TO THE JOINT SAVINGS ACCOUNTS. NO CASH BOOK OR PURCHASE AND SALES BILL WERE PRODUCED BEFORE THE AO WHICH COULD HAVE S UPPORTED THE CLAIM DEPOSITS IN THE SAVINGS BANK ACCOUNT REPRESENTED TH E INCOME OF MRS.MEENAXI VAISHNAV. THIS AMOUNT OF CA SH D EPOSITS HAVE NOT BEEN ADDED IN THE INCOME OF MRS. MEENAXI VAISHNAV OR SHRI VIRAG P.VAISHNAV AND HAS B EEN CLEARLY HELD AS INCOME OF ANY ONLY. IT IS FURTHER NOTED THAT AS PER THE PROFI T & LOSS ACCOUNT OF MRS. MEENAXI VAISHNAV, THE SALES IS RS.15,11,027/ - . THUS THERE CANNOT BE ANY BASIS TO CLAIM THAT THE WITHDRAWAL ON EARLIER OCCASION IS DEPOSITED AGAIN IN THE BANK ACCOUNT, IF THE EXPLANATION THAT THE REPRESENTS THE SALES SHOWN BY MRS. MEENAXI VAISHNAV WAS REALLY TRUE. THE 12 OF MRS. MEENAXI VAISHNAV WAS FILED ONLY ON 28.03 .2012 WHICH IS AFTER THE RETURN FILED BY THE APP ELLANT C OMPANY ON 31.12.2011. NO BALANCE SHEET WAS FILED ALONG WITH THE RETURN OF INCOME OF MRS. MEENAXI VAISHNAV. THE BANK STATEMENT SHOWS THE LOCATION OF THE CASH DEPOSITS W HICH ARE ALL OVER THE COUNTRY. THUS THESE FACTS CLEARLY INDICATE THAT CA SH DEPOSITS IN TH E SAVINGS ACCOUNT WITH ICICI BANK REPRESENTS THE UNACCOUNTED SALES OF THE APPELLANT COMPANY. THUS THE ADDITIONS MADE BY THE AO IS UPHELD SUBJECT TO VERIF YING THE ACTUAL DEPOSIT OF CASH WHICH AS PER THE APPELLANT IS ONLY RS.55,40,678/ - . ACCORDINGLY GROUND O THE STAND OF LD. AO QUA ADDITION ON ACCOUNT OF WAS ALSO CONFIRMED SINCE DISCREPANCIES WERE FOUND IN QUANTITATIVE DETAILS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE. AGGRIEV ED, THE FURTHER APPEAL BEFORE US. SENIOR COUNSEL [AR], DR.K.SHIVRAM, BY DRAWING OUR ATTENTION TO THE DOCUMENTS PLACED IN THE PAPER- BOOK SUSTAINED BY LD. FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY W D. DEPARTMENTAL R EPRESENTATIVE [DR], SUBMITTED THAT THE ADDITIONS WERE JUSTIFIED SINCE T HE SAME HAS CATEGORICALLY BEEN ADMITTED BY THE DIRECTOR OF THE ASSESSEE. ITA NO.7349/MUM/2016 VIJAG SKATES PVT.LTD ASSESSMENT YEAR-2011-12 VIRAG P.VAISHNAV TILL THE TIME OF THE ASSESSMENT OR DER WHICH INDICATES THAT THE D NOT UNDER ANY EXTRANEOUS INFLUENCE OF COERCION. IT OTED THAT THE RELEVANT PURCHASES AND SALES BILL WER E NOT PRODUCED BEFORE THE AO AT THE TIME OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS IN RESPECT OF THE INCOME CLAIMED IN THE RETURN FILED BY SHRI VIRAG P.VAISHNAV AND MRS MEENA XI VAISHNAV. MRS. MEENAXI ULD NOT BE ACCEPTED TO HAVE DEPOSITED CASH ALL OVER THE COUNTRY CREDITED TO THE JOINT SAVINGS ACCOUNTS. NO CASH BOOK OR PURCHASE AND SALES BILL WERE PRODUCED BEFORE THE AO WHICH COULD HAVE S UPPORTED THE CLAIM THAT THE DEPOSITS IN THE SAVINGS BANK ACCOUNT REPRESENTED TH E INCOME OF MRS.MEENAXI EPOSITS HAVE NOT BEEN ADDED IN THE INCOME OF MRS. MEENAXI VAISHNAV OR SHRI VIRAG P.VAISHNAV AND HAS B EEN CLEARLY HELD AS INCOME OF ANY ONLY. IT IS FURTHER NOTED THAT AS PER THE PROFI T & LOSS ACCOUNT OF AND PURCHASES IS . THUS THERE CANNOT BE ANY BASIS TO CLAIM THAT THE WITHDRAWAL ON THE BANK ACCOUNT, IF THE EXPLANATION THAT THE REPRESENTS THE SALES SHOWN BY MRS. MEENAXI VAISHNAV WAS REALLY TRUE. THE 12 OF MRS. MEENAXI VAISHNAV WAS FILED ONLY ON 28.03 .2012 OMPANY ON 31.12.2011. NO BALANCE SHEET WAS FILED ALONG WITH THE RETURN OF INCOME OF MRS. MEENAXI VAISHNAV. THE BANK STATEMENT SHOWS THE LOCATION OF THE CASH DEPOSITS W HICH ARE ALL OVER THE COUNTRY. E SAVINGS ACCOUNT WITH ICICI COMPANY. THUS THE ADDITIONS MADE BY THE AO IS UPHELD SUBJECT TO VERIF YING THE ACTUAL DEPOSIT OF CASH . ACCORDINGLY GROUND O F APPEAL ADDITION ON ACCOUNT OF ALLEGED BOGUS SINCE DISCREPANCIES WERE FOUND IN QUANTITATIVE DETAILS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE. AGGRIEV ED, THE ASSESSEE IS IN BY DRAWING OUR BOOK , CONTESTED THE SUSTAINED BY LD. FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY W HICH HAS BEEN [DR], SHRI RAJEEV SUBMITTED THAT THE ADDITIONS WERE JUSTIFIED SINCE T HE SAME HAS CATEGORICALLY BEEN ADMITTED BY THE DIRECTOR OF THE ASSESSEE. 5. WE HAVE CAREFULLY HEARD THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS AND P ERUSED RELEVANT MATERIAL ON RECORD INCLUDING DOCUMENTS PLACED IN TH E WRITTEN SYNOPSIS FILED BEFORE US SR. COUNSEL IS THAT THE CASH WAS FOUND TO BE D BANK ACCOUNT AND THE SAME DID NOT BELONG TO THE ASS ESSEE AND THEREFORE, THE ADDITIONS U/S 68 JUSTIFIED. OUR ATTENTION IS DRAWN TO THE FACT THAT FOR IMMEDIATELY PRECEDING AY 2010- 11, THE ADDITION ACCOUNT WAS ADDED TO THE EXTENT OF RS.9.50 LACS ON THE HANDS OF VIRAG VAISHNAV THE LD. SR. COUNSEL FORTIFIED HIS STAND BY SUBMITTI NG THE CASH DEPOSIT IMPUGNED BANK ACCOUNT BELONGED TO WERE DULY REFLECTED IN HER RETURN OF INCOME. THE ASSESSEE EXPLAINED THE CASH DEPOSIT IN THE COUR SE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, IT HAS DISCHARGED THE ONUS CASTED ON THE IMPUGNED ADDITIONS WERE NOT JUSTIFIED. WITHOUT PREJUDICE, IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT THE ADDITIONS MAY BE RESTRICTED TO S OME REASONABLE PERCENTAGE OF DEPOSITS BEING PROFIT ELEMENT EMBEDDE D IN THE DEPOSITS. 6. UPON CAREFUL CONSIDERATION OF RAISED BEFORE US , WE FIND THAT IT IS UNDISPUTED THAT THE CASH IS FO UND TO HAVE BEEN DEPOSITED IN ONE OF THE BANK ACCOUNT WHIC H IS JOINTLY HELD BY THE TWO DIRECTORS OF THE ASSESSEE NO CORROBORATIVE EVIDENCE ON RECORD DIRECTOR THAT THE BANK ACCOUNT BELONGED TO ASSESSEE . TO NOTE THAT SIMILAR DEPOSITS HAVE BEEN FOUND IN TH E BANK ACCOUNT MAINTAINED BY THE ASSESS 6 WE HAVE CAREFULLY HEARD THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS AND P ERUSED RELEVANT MATERIAL ON RECORD INCLUDING DOCUMENTS PLACED IN TH E WRITTEN SYNOPSIS FILED BEFORE US . THE FIRST AND FOREMOST SUBMISSION OF LD. SR. COUNSEL IS THAT THE CASH WAS FOUND TO BE D EPOSITED IN THIRD PARTY BANK ACCOUNT AND THE SAME DID NOT BELONG TO THE ASS ESSEE AND THEREFORE, THE ADDITIONS U/S 68 IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSEE JUSTIFIED. OUR ATTENTION IS DRAWN TO THE FACT THAT FOR IMMEDIATELY PRECEDING 11, THE ADDITION ON ACCOUNT OF CASH DEPOSITS IN THE SAME BANK ACCOUNT WAS ADDED TO THE EXTENT OF RS.9.50 LACS ON PEAK CREDIT BASIS VIRAG VAISHNAV VIDE ASSESSMENT ORDER DATED 03/02/2015. THE LD. SR. COUNSEL FORTIFIED HIS STAND BY SUBMITTI NG THE CASH DEPOSIT IMPUGNED BANK ACCOUNT BELONGED TO MINAXI VAISHNAV WERE DULY REFLECTED IN HER RETURN OF INCOME. IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT SINCE THE ASSESSEE EXPLAINED THE CASH DEPOSIT IN THE COUR SE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, IT HAS DISCHARGED THE ONUS CASTED ON HIM AND THEREFORE, THE IMPUGNED ADDITIONS WERE NOT JUSTIFIED. WITHOUT PREJUDICE, IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT THE ADDITIONS MAY BE RESTRICTED TO S OME REASONABLE PERCENTAGE OF DEPOSITS BEING PROFIT ELEMENT EMBEDDE D IN THE DEPOSITS. CAREFUL CONSIDERATION OF FACTUAL MATRIX AND ARGUMENTS AS , WE FIND THAT IT IS UNDISPUTED THAT THE CASH IS FO UND TO HAVE BEEN DEPOSITED IN ONE OF THE BANK ACCOUNT WHIC H IS JOINTLY HELD BY THE TWO DIRECTORS OF THE ASSESSEE I.E. THIRD PARTY BA NK ACCOUNT. THERE IS CORROBORATIVE EVIDENCE ON RECORD EXCEPT THE STATEMENT OF ONE OF THE DIRECTOR THAT THE BANK ACCOUNT BELONGED TO ASSESSEE . IT IS ALSO PERTINENT TO NOTE THAT SIMILAR DEPOSITS HAVE BEEN FOUND IN TH E BANK ACCOUNT ASSESS EE WHICH OBVIATES THE NECESSITY TO ITA NO.7349/MUM/2016 VIJAG SKATES PVT.LTD ASSESSMENT YEAR-2011-12 WE HAVE CAREFULLY HEARD THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS AND P ERUSED RELEVANT MATERIAL ON RECORD INCLUDING DOCUMENTS PLACED IN TH E PAPER-BOOK AND THE FIRST AND FOREMOST SUBMISSION OF LD. EPOSITED IN THIRD PARTY BANK ACCOUNT AND THE SAME DID NOT BELONG TO THE ASS ESSEE AND IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSEE WAS NOT JUSTIFIED. OUR ATTENTION IS DRAWN TO THE FACT THAT FOR IMMEDIATELY PRECEDING ON ACCOUNT OF CASH DEPOSITS IN THE SAME BANK PEAK CREDIT BASIS IN VIDE ASSESSMENT ORDER DATED 03/02/2015. THE LD. SR. COUNSEL FORTIFIED HIS STAND BY SUBMITTI NG THE CASH DEPOSIT IN MINAXI VAISHNAV AND THE SAME IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT SINCE THE ASSESSEE EXPLAINED THE CASH DEPOSIT IN THE COUR SE OF ASSESSMENT HIM AND THEREFORE, THE IMPUGNED ADDITIONS WERE NOT JUSTIFIED. WITHOUT PREJUDICE, IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT THE ADDITIONS MAY BE RESTRICTED TO S OME REASONABLE PERCENTAGE OF DEPOSITS BEING PROFIT ELEMENT EMBEDDE D IN THE DEPOSITS. AND ARGUMENTS AS , WE FIND THAT IT IS UNDISPUTED THAT THE CASH IS FO UND TO HAVE BEEN DEPOSITED IN ONE OF THE BANK ACCOUNT WHIC H IS JOINTLY HELD BY NK ACCOUNT. THERE IS EXCEPT THE STATEMENT OF ONE OF THE IT IS ALSO PERTINENT TO NOTE THAT SIMILAR DEPOSITS HAVE BEEN FOUND IN TH E BANK ACCOUNT THE NECESSITY TO GET THE CASH DEPOSITS IN THE BANK ACCOUNT OF THE DIRECTOR. PLEADED THAT TH E AFORESAID BANK ACCOUNT BELONGED TO AND THE SAME WAS REFLECTED IN HER RETURN OF INCOME FILED BEFORE RECO OF STATEMENT. HOWEVER, IN CONTRAST TO ALL THESE FACTS, THERE IS NO RETRACTION OF THE STATEMENT MADE BY DIR EC WHO WAS FULLY AWARE OF THE BUSINESS AFFAIRS OF THE ASSESSEE COMPANY AND WAS HEART AND SOUL OF THE MIND TO OVERALL FACTUAL MATRIX ARGUMENT THAT SINCE THE CASH DEPOSIT REPRESENTED UN ACCOUNTED SALES, A REASONABLE PERCENTAGE THEREOF WAS REQUIRED TO BE AD DED TO THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE INSTEAD OF FULL ADDITION AS DONE BY LOWER AUTHORITI ES KEEPING IN VIEW THE NET PROFIT RATE DECLARED B ESTIMATE THE SAME AT @5 COMES TO RS. 2,77,715/ GROUNDS STAND PARTLY ALLOWED. 7. SO FAR AS THE ADDITION OF RS.8.23 LACS ON ACCOUNT O F PURCHASES IS CONCERNED, WE FIND THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS MISERAB LY FAILED TO SUBSTANTIATE THE PURCHASE TRANSACTIONS. NOTICE I SSUED U/S 133(6) ELICITED NO SATISFACTORY RESPONSE AND THE ASSESSEE COULD NOT SUBSTANTIATE THE DELIVERY OF MATERIAL. GENUINENESS OF PURCHASES COULD NOT BE DISCHARGED BY THE ASSESSEE. THE SAME TIME, THE ASSESSEE WAS ENGAGED IN MANUFACT URING OF GOODS WHICH COULD NOT BE CARRIED OUT WITHOUT ACTUAL CONSU MPTION OF MATERIAL. THE ASSESSEE IS STATED TO HAVE PURCHASED SUPPLIER, WHICH IS ONE OF THE PRIME COMPONENTS IN M ANUFACTURING THE ROLLER SKATES. UNDER THE GIVEN 7 DEPOSITS IN THE BANK ACCOUNT OF THE DIRECTOR. THE SR. COUNSEL HAS ALSO E AFORESAID BANK ACCOUNT BELONGED TO MINAXI VAISHANAV AND THE SAME WAS REFLECTED IN HER RETURN OF INCOME FILED BEFORE RECO HOWEVER, IN CONTRAST TO ALL THESE FACTS, IT IS ALSO NOTED THAT THERE IS NO RETRACTION OF THE STATEMENT MADE BY DIR EC TOR OF THE ASSESSEE FULLY AWARE OF THE BUSINESS AFFAIRS OF THE ASSESSEE COMPANY WAS HEART AND SOUL OF THE ASSESSEE COMPANY . AFTER APPLYING OUR TO OVERALL FACTUAL MATRIX , WE FIND SUBSTANTIAL FORCE IN ARGUMENT THAT SINCE THE CASH DEPOSIT REPRESENTED UN ACCOUNTED SALES, A REASONABLE PERCENTAGE THEREOF WAS REQUIRED TO BE AD DED TO THE INCOME INSTEAD OF FULL ADDITION AS DONE BY LOWER AUTHORITI ES KEEPING IN VIEW THE NET PROFIT RATE DECLARED B Y THE ASSESSEE, WE ESTIMATE THE SAME AT @5 % OF CASH DEPOSITS OF RS.55,54,310/ 2,77,715/ -. THE BALANCE ADDITION STAND GROUNDS STAND PARTLY ALLOWED. SO FAR AS THE ADDITION OF RS.8.23 LACS ON ACCOUNT O F IS CONCERNED, WE FIND THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS MISERAB LY FAILED TO SUBSTANTIATE THE PURCHASE TRANSACTIONS. NOTICE I SSUED U/S 133(6) ELICITED NO SATISFACTORY RESPONSE AND THE ASSESSEE COULD NOT SUBSTANTIATE THE DELIVERY OF MATERIAL. THE PRIMARY ONUS TO ESTABLI GENUINENESS OF PURCHASES COULD NOT BE DISCHARGED BY THE ASSESSEE. THE SAME TIME, THE ASSESSEE WAS ENGAGED IN MANUFACT URING OF GOODS WHICH COULD NOT BE CARRIED OUT WITHOUT ACTUAL CONSU MPTION OF MATERIAL. THE ASSESSEE IS STATED TO HAVE PURCHASED BEARINGS SUPPLIER, WHICH IS ONE OF THE PRIME COMPONENTS IN M ANUFACTURING THE THE GIVEN CIRCUMSTANCES, WE RESTR ICT THE IMPUGNED ITA NO.7349/MUM/2016 VIJAG SKATES PVT.LTD ASSESSMENT YEAR-2011-12 SR. COUNSEL HAS ALSO MINAXI VAISHANAV AND THE SAME WAS REFLECTED IN HER RETURN OF INCOME FILED BEFORE RECO RDING IT IS ALSO NOTED THAT TOR OF THE ASSESSEE FULLY AWARE OF THE BUSINESS AFFAIRS OF THE ASSESSEE COMPANY . AFTER APPLYING OUR FORCE IN THE ALTERNATIVE ARGUMENT THAT SINCE THE CASH DEPOSIT REPRESENTED UN ACCOUNTED SALES, A REASONABLE PERCENTAGE THEREOF WAS REQUIRED TO BE AD DED TO THE INCOME INSTEAD OF FULL ADDITION AS DONE BY LOWER AUTHORITI ES . THE ASSESSEE, WE OF RS.55,54,310/ - WHICH STAND S DELETED. THE SO FAR AS THE ADDITION OF RS.8.23 LACS ON ACCOUNT O F ALLEGED BOGUS IS CONCERNED, WE FIND THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS MISERAB LY FAILED TO SUBSTANTIATE THE PURCHASE TRANSACTIONS. NOTICE I SSUED U/S 133(6) ELICITED NO SATISFACTORY RESPONSE AND THE ASSESSEE COULD NOT ONUS TO ESTABLI SH THE GENUINENESS OF PURCHASES COULD NOT BE DISCHARGED BY THE ASSESSEE. AT THE SAME TIME, THE ASSESSEE WAS ENGAGED IN MANUFACT URING OF GOODS WHICH COULD NOT BE CARRIED OUT WITHOUT ACTUAL CONSU MPTION OF MATERIAL. BEARINGS FROM THE SAID SUPPLIER, WHICH IS ONE OF THE PRIME COMPONENTS IN M ANUFACTURING THE ICT THE IMPUGNED ADDITIONS TO 12.5% OF ALLEGED BOGUS PURCHASES COMES TO RS.1,02,884/- . 8. IN NUTSHELL, THE APPEAL STAND PARTLY ALLOWED IN TER MS OF OUR ABOVE ORDER. ORDER PR ONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON SD/- (SAKTIJIT DEY) &' %( / JUDICIAL MEMBER - MUMBAI; '% DATED : 02/11/2018 SR.PS:-THIRUMALESH/JV, SR.PS ! COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO 1. / THE APPELLANT 2. *+ / THE RESPONDENT 3. # / THE CIT(A) 4. # / CIT CONCERNED 5. './*'$''0 '0 6. /12 GUARD FILE 8 ALLEGED BOGUS PURCHASES OF RS.8 . THIS GROUND STANDS PARTLY ALLOWED. IN NUTSHELL, THE APPEAL STAND PARTLY ALLOWED IN TER MS OF OUR ABOVE ONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 2 ND NOVEWMBER, 2018. SD/- (MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL) JUDICIAL MEMBER %( / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER 02/11/2018 COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : THE CIT(A) CONCERNED '0 - / DR, ITAT, MUMBAI ' # '$ % - ITA NO.7349/MUM/2016 VIJAG SKATES PVT.LTD ASSESSMENT YEAR-2011-12 OF RS.8 ,23,071/- WHICH PARTLY ALLOWED. IN NUTSHELL, THE APPEAL STAND PARTLY ALLOWED IN TER MS OF OUR ABOVE NOVEWMBER, 2018. (MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ' / BY ORDER, (DY./ASSTT.REGISTRAR) - / ITAT, MUMBAI