PRITHVIRAJ G. CHARAYA, MUMBAI V. ACIT 31(2), MUMBAI

ITA 891/MUM/2017

• Counselvise Citation: [2017] 127 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 0031 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 6 month(s) 21 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 30-08-2017
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: Not Allotted
• Assessment Year: 2009-2010
• Appeal Filed On: 08-02-2017
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Assessee Lawyers: MANISH J SHETH
• Keywords: Bogus purchase; Wrong claim; Corroborative evidences; Accommodation entries
• Section: 143(3); 133(6); 148

Judgement Text

PRITHVIRAJ G. CHARAYA ITA NO. 891/MUM/2017 1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL I BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI RAJENDRA , AM AND SHRI RAVISH SOOD, JM ./ I.T.A. NO. 891/MUM/2017 ( / ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2009 - 10) PRITHVIRAJ G.CHARAYA 208, NIGOS INDUSTRIAL ESTATE, CAMA ESTATE, GOREGAON (EAST), MUMBAI - 400063 / VS. ACIT 31(2), MUMBAI ROOM NO. 207, 2 ND FLOOR, C - 10,, PRATYAKSHKAR BHAVAN, B.K.C. BANDRA (W) MUMBAI - 400051 ./ ./ PAN/GIR NO. AABPC2648D ( /APPELLANT ) : ( / RESPONDENT) / APPELLANT BY : SHRI MANISH J. SHET H , A.R / RESPONDENT BY : SHRI SAURABH KUMAR RAI, D.R / DATE OF HEARING : 22/08/2017 / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 30 /08/2017 / O R D E R PER RAVISH SOOD, JUDICIAL MEMBER T HE PRESENT APPEAL IS DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER PASSED BY THE CIT(A) - 42, MUMBAI, DATED 26.10.2016 , WHICH IN ITSELF ARISES FROM THE ASSESSMENT FRAMED BY THE A.O U/S 143(3) R.W.S. 147 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 (IN SHORT THE ACT), DATED 30.01.2015. THE AS SESSEE ASSAILING PRITHVIRAJ G. CHARAYA ITA NO. 891/MUM/2017 2 THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A) HAD RAISED BEFORE US TH E FOLLOWING GROUNDS OF APPEAL: - 1. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW, THE LD. CIT(A) ERRED IN CONFIRMING WITH AOS TREATMENT OF MAKING ADDITION OF PURCHASES FROM T HE FOLLOWING PARTIES AS BOGUS AND MADE ADDITION OF RS.11,93,677/ - . SR. NO. NAME OF THE PARTY TIN AMOUNT (RS.) 1. OM CORPORATION 27310540795V 2,25,756/ - 2 PARSHVA & COMPANY 27710615362V 94,677/ - 3. SHIVRAJ TRADERS 27920665638V 1,07,978/ - 4. OMKAR TRADING CORPORATION 27600606547V 1,11,800/ - 5. SAMBHAV SALES CORPORATION 27900550898V 65,115/ - 6. JIGAN ENTERPRISES 27560404324V 4,20,714/ - 7. DAKSHA ENTERPRISES 27140610389V 1,19,891/ - 8. MAHAVIR ENTERPRISES 27560556517V 47,746/ - 2. WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO OTHER GROUNDS AND ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW, THE LD. CIT(A) ERRED IN NOT RESTRICTING THE ADDITION ON ACCOUNT OF ALLEGED BOGUS PURCHASE TO 15.47% GP RATE. 3. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW, THE LD. CIT(A) OUGHT TO HAVE CONSIDERED THAT STATEMENT GIVEN BY DEALERS TO SALES TAX AUTHORITIES ABOUT GENUINENESS OF SALES CANNOT BE TREATED AS CONCLUSIVE EVIDENCE OF FALSEHOOD OF PURCHASES BEC AUSE SUCH SELLERS MIGHT NOT WANT TO GET INVOLVED IN ANY FURTHER LITIGATIONS AND THEREFORE THEY IGNORED ALL THESE QUESTIONS. 4. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW, THE LD. CIT(A) ERRED IN NOT CONSIDERING THE FACT THAT THE ASSESSEE RECONCILED USE OF MATERIAL PURCHASED FROM SUCH ALLEGED BOGUS PARTIES AT THE PROJECT OF TATA COMMUNICATION LIMITED . 5. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW, THE LD. CIT(A) ERRED IN CONCLUDING THAT SINCE THE ASSESSEE IS UNABLE TO PRODUCE ANY PARTY FOR EXAMINATION AND ALSO HE HAS NOT MAINTAINED ANY STOCK REGISTER, HE CANNOT ARGUE THAT HIS PURCHASES ARE GENUINE AND MERE SUBMISSIONS OF INVOICES AND BANK STATEMENT ARE NOT SUFFICIENT . 6. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW, THE LD. CIT(A) ERRED IN NOT ACCEPTING THE FACT THAT THE CHEQUES ISSUED BY THE ASSESSEE HAS BEEN CLEARED IN THE BANK ACCOUNT OF THE SUPPLIER PARTIES AND ASSESSEE HAS NO CONTROL OVER SUPPLIER P ARTY WHAT HE DOES WITH PAYMENT HE RECEIVED IN HIS BANK ACCOUNT . 7. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW, THE LD. CIT(A) ERRED IN NOT FOLLOWING VARIOUS JUDICIAL PRONOUNCEMENT OF HON'BLE MUMBAI ITAT AND HON'BLE HIGH COURTS . 8. T HE APPELLANT CRAVES YOUR HONOUR LEAVE TO ADD, ALTER OR AMEND THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL TAKEN AS ABOVE . PRITHVIRAJ G. CHARAYA ITA NO. 891/MUM/2017 3 2 . BRIEFLY STATED, THE FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT THE ASSESSEE WHO IS ENGAGED IN THE BUSINESS OF ELECTRICAL ENGINEERS AND CONTRACTORS AS A SOLE PROPRIETOR OF A CONCERN M/S ECOM ASSOCIATES HAD FILED HIS RETURN OF INCOME FOR A.Y. 2009 - 10 ON 25.09.2009, DECLAR ING AN INCOME OF RS. 1,30,49,700/ - . THE A.O WAS IN RECEIPT OF INFORMATION FROM THE OFFICE OF THE DIRECTOR GENERAL OF INCOME TAX (INV.), MUMBAI, [ FOR SHORT DGIT(INV.) ] THAT THE SALES TAX DEPARTMENT, GOV ERNMENT OF MAHARASHTRA, HAD UNEARTHED THE NAMES OF VA RIOUS SUSPICIOUS PARTIES WH ICH WERE INVOLVED ONLY IN PROVIDING OF ACCOMMODATION ENTRIES WITHOUT DOING ANY ACTUAL BUSINESS. THE A.O WAS INFORMED BY THE OFFICE OF THE DGIT(INV.) THAT THE DETAILS SO GATHERED BY THE SALES TAX DEPARTMENT, WHICH WAS ALSO AVAILAB LE ON THE OFFICIAL WEBSITE OF MVAT , THEREIN REVEALED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD CARRIED OUT VARIOUS PURCHASES FROM THE SAID HAWALA PARTIES, AS UNDER: - THE A.O ON THE BASIS OF THE AFORESAID INFORMATION REOPENED THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE UNDER SEC. 147 , AND ISSUED A NOTICE U/S 148 ON 05.03.2014 TO THE ASSESSEE. THE ASSESSEE IN RESPONSE TO THE SAID NOTICE FILED A LETTER DATED. 06.08.2014 AND REQUESTED THAT HIS ORIGINAL RETURN OF INCOME FILED ON 25.09.2009 BE TREATED AS A RETURN OF INCOME SR. NO. NAME OF THE PARTY TIN AMOUNT (RS.) 1. OM CORPORATION 27310540795V 2,25,756/ - 2 PARSHVA & COMPANY 27710615362V 94,677/ - 3. SHIVRAJ TRADERS 27920665638V 1,07,978/ - 4. OMKAR TRADING CORPORATION 27600606547V 1,11,800/ - 5. SAMBHAV SALES CORPORATION 27900550898V 65,115/ - 6. JIGAN ENTERPRISES 27560404324V 4,20,714/ - 7. DAKSHA ENTERPRISES 27140610389V 1,19,891/ - 8. MAHAVIR ENTERPRISES 27560556517V 47,746/ - TOTAL 11,93,677/ - PRITHVIRAJ G. CHARAYA ITA NO. 891/MUM/2017 4 FILED IN COMPLIANCE TO THE NOTICE ISSUED TO HIM U/S 148 OF THE ACT. THE A.O ACCEPTED THE SAID REQUEST OF THE ASSESSEE AND ISSUED NOTICES U/SS. 143(2)/142(1) TO THE ASSESSEE. 3 . THAT DURING THE COURSE OF THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS THE ASSESSE E IN COMPLIANCE TO THE DIRECTIONS OF THE A.O FURNISHED THE DETAILS OF THE PURCHASES, TIN AND NAME OF THE PARTIES FROM WHOM PURCHASES WERE MADE BY HIM DURING THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION. THE A.O DELIBERATING ON THE DETAILS OF PURCHASES FURNISHED BY THE ASS ESSEE, THEREIN OBSERVED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD MADE PURCHASES AGGREGATING TO RS. 11,93,677/ - (SUPRA) FROM THE PARTIES WHOSE NAME FIGURED IN THE LIST OF THE HAWALA PARTIES WHICH WERE FOUND BY THE SALES TAX DEPARTMENT TO HAVE BEEN PROVIDING ACCOMMODATION ENTRI ES. 4. THE A.O THUS IN THE BACKDROP OF THE AFORESAID FACTUAL POSITION CALLED UPON THE ASSESSEE TO SUBSTANTIATE THE GENUINENESS AND VERACITY OF THE PURCHASES MADE BY HIM DURING THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION. THE A.O DIRECTED THE ASSESSEE TO PRODUCE BEFORE HIM THE STOCK REGISTER (DAY TO DAY BASIS FOR ALL ITEMS), DAY TO DAY CONSUMPTION AND PRODUCTION REGISTER (FOR EACH OF THE ITEM), PRODUCTION, DISPATCH REGISTER, TRANSPORT DETAILS, CHALLAN ETC. , AS EVIDENCE OF THE PURCHASE TRANSACTIONS. THE A.O ALSO CALLED UP ON THE ASSESSEE TO FURNISH MONTH - WISE DETAILS OF PURCHASES AND SALES, BOTH IN QUANTITY AND VALUE. THE A.O IN ORDER TO VERIFY THE VERACITY OF THE PURCHASE TRANSACTIONS ISSUED NOTICES U/S 133(6) TO THE AFORESAID HAWALA PARTIES, HOWEVER, THE SAME WERE RETURNE D BY THE POSTAL AUTHORITIES WITH THE REMARKS NOT KNOWN AND LEFT ADDRESS. THE A.O BROUGHT THE AFORESAID FACTS TO THE NOTICE OF THE ASSESSEE AND DIRECTED HIM TO GET COMPLIANCE OF THE AFORESAID NOTICES , AS WELL AS PROVE THE GENUINENESS OF THE PURCHASE TRA NSACTIONS. THE ASSESSEE HOWEVER DID NOT MAKE NECESSARY COMPLIANCE TO THE SPECIFIC DIRECTIONS OF THE A.O AND FAILED TO PLACE ON PRITHVIRAJ G. CHARAYA ITA NO. 891/MUM/2017 5 RECORD THE DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCES TO SUBSTANTIATE TH E GENUINENESS OF THE PURCHASES, VIZ. DAY TO DAY ITEM WISE STOCK REGISTER, STORES REGISTER, STOCK - MOVEMENT REGISTER, AND THE EVIDENCE OF CONSUMPTION OF MATERIAL PURCHASED FROM THE ABOVEMENTIONED PARTIES. THE ASSESSEE DURING THE COURSE OF T HE ASSESSMENT PROCE EDINGS TOOK STRONG SUPPORT OF THE FACT THAT THE PAYMENT S OF THE PURCHASE CONSIDERATION WAS MADE TO THE AFOREMENTIONED PARTIES THROUGH BANKING CHANNEL, HOWEVER, THE A.O HOLDING A CONVICTION THAT MAKING OF PAYMENT THROUGH BANKING CHANNEL DID NOT SUFFICE THE REQUIREMENT FOR PROVING THE GENUINENESS OF THE PURCHASE TRANSACTIONS. THE A.O IN THE BACKDROP OF THE AFORESAID FACTUAL POSITION THUS CONCLUDED THAT IN THE ABSENCE OF THE CORROBORATIVE EVIDENCE HAVING BEEN PLACED ON RECORD BY THE ASSESSEE, THE GENUINENESS O F THE PURCHASES COULD NOT BE ESTABLISHED. THE PERTINENT OBSERVATIONS RECORDED BY THE A.O WHILE FRAMING THE ASSESSMENT ARE BRIEFLY CULLED OUT AS UNDER: - (I). THE A.O DECLINED TO RELY ON THE LEDGER A/CS OF THE AFORESAID PARTIES, BY OBSERVING THAT NOW WHE N THE SAID PARTIES THEMSELVES HAD ADMITTED THAT THEY HAD NOT MADE ANY PURCHASES, THEREFORE, THERE COULD HAVE BEEN NO SALES TO THE ASSESSEE. (II). THAT AS THE AFORESAID PARTIES HAD ADMITTED THAT THEY WERE ISSUING BOGUS BILLS FOR PETTY COMMISSION, THEREFOR E, COPY OF THEIR INVOICES SO PLACED ON RECORD BY THE ASSESSEE WOULD SE R VE NO PURPOSE. (III). THAT DESPITE THE FACT THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS INFORMED THAT THE NOTICES ISSUED TO THE AFORESAID PARTIES U/S 133(6) WERE RETURNED BY THE POSTAL AUTHORITIES WITH THE REMARKS NOT KNOWN OR LEFT ADDRESS, HE HOWEVER HAD FAILED TO FURNISH THE NEW OR VERIFIABLE ADDRESS OF THE SAID PARTIES. PRITHVIRAJ G. CHARAYA ITA NO. 891/MUM/2017 6 (IV). THAT DESPITE THE FACT THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS DIRECTED TO PRODUCE THE RESPECTIVE PARTIES FOR EXAMINATION ALONGWITH THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS, PURCHASE AND S ALE BILLS ALONGWITH OTHER SUPPORTING EVIDENCE, HOWEVER, THE ASSESSEE H AD FAILED TO COMPLY WITH THE SAID DIRECTIONS. (V). THAT THE CONTENTION OF THE ASSESSEE THAT THE PAYMENTS OF THE PURCHASE CONSIDERATION TO THE AFORESAID PARTIES WAS MADE THROUGH BANKING CHANNELS DID NOT SUFFICE TO PROVE THE GENUINENESS OF THE PURCHASE TRAN SACTIONS. (VI). THE ASSESSEE HAD NOT CONTROVERTED THE ADMISSION OF THE SUPPLIER PARTIES THAT THEY HAD ONLY PROVIDED BOGUS BILLS AGAINST COMMISS I ON AND HAD NOT CARRIED OUT ANY GENUINE SALES OF GOODS. (VII). THE ASSESSEE DESPITE SPECIFIC DIRECTIONS HAD H OWEVER FAILED TO PRODUCE BEFORE THE A.O THE STOCK REGISTER (DAY TO DAY BASIS FOR ALL ITEMS), DAY TO DAY CONSUMPTION AND PRODUCTION REGISTER (FOR EACH OF THE ITEM), PRODUCTION, DISPATCH REGISTER, TRANSPORT DETAILS, CHALLAN ETC. AS EVIDENCE OF THE PURCHASE T RANSACTIONS. (VIII). THAT COPIES OF THE BANK STATEMENTS OF THREE OF THE AFORESAID PARTIES, VIZ. (I). M/S PARSHVA & CO.; (II). M/S SHIVRAJ TRADERS; AND (III). M/S MAHAVIR ENTERPRISES, THEREIN REVEALED THAT AFTER THE PAYMENTS RECEIVED BY THE RESPECTIVE PA RTIES FROM THE ASSESSEE WERE CLEARED I N THEIR BANK ACCOUNTS, THERE WAS AN IMMEDIATE WITHDRAWAL OF THE SAID AMOUNTS IN CASH FROM THE SAID ACCOUNTS. THE A.O THUS PERSUADED BY HIS AFORESAID OBSERVATIONS , THEREIN CONCLUDED THAT IT STOOD ESTABLISHED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD NOT CARRIED OUT ANY GENUINE PURCHASES FROM THE AFORESAID PARTIES . THE A.O THUS ON THE BASIS OF HIS AFORESAID CONVICTION MADE AN ADDITION OF THE PRITHVIRAJ G. CHARAYA ITA NO. 891/MUM/2017 7 PURCHASES TOTALING TO RS. 11,93,677/ - (SUPRA) IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSEE. 5. THE ASSESSEE BEING AGGRIEVED WITH THE ORDER OF THE A.O CARRIED THE MATTER IN APPEAL BEFORE THE CIT(A). THE CIT(A) WHILE DISPOSING OF THE APPEAL THEREIN DID FIND FAVOR WITH THE OBSERVATIONS OF THE A.O. THE CIT(A) FURTHER OBSERVED THAT WHILE FOR ON ONE HAND THE ASSESSEE WAS STRESSING ON THE GENUINENESS OF THE PURCHASE TRANSACTIONS, HOWEVER, CONTRARY TO THE SAID CLAIM HAD ITSELF FOREGONE THE SET OFF OF THE VAT CLAIMED BY HIM TO HAVE BEEN PAID ON THE PURCHASES MADE FROM THE A FORESAID PARTIES. THE CIT(A) DELIBERATING ON THE OBSERVATIONS OF THE A.O AND THE CONTENTIONS RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE BEFORE HIM, THEREIN CONCLUDED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD FAILED TO DISCHARGE THE ONUS AS STOOD CAST UPON HIM IN RESPECT OF THE GENUINENESS OF THE PURCHASE TRANSACTIONS. THE CIT(A) DISTINGUISHING THE FACTS INVOLVED IN THE CASE OF THE PRESENT ASSESSEE, AS AGAINST A CASE WHERE BOTH THE PURCHASE AND SALES ARE VERIFIABLE AND PROVEN, OR A CASE WHERE THE PURCHASES ARE FOUND TO BOGUS BUT THE CORRELATING SA LES ARE PROVED, THEREIN OBSERVED THAT AS IN THE CASE OF THE PRESENT ASSESSEE THE ASSESSEE HAD FAILED TO SUBSTANTIATE THE GENUINENESS OF THE PURCHASES AS WELL AS THE FACTUM OF CONSUMPTION OF THE MATERIAL, THEREFORE, THE ASSESSEE COULD SAFELY BE HELD TO HAVE INFLATED ITS EXPENSES BY TAKING BOGUS BILLS OF PURCHASES FROM THE HAWALA DEALERS. THE CIT(A) THUS IN THE BACKDROP OF HIS AFORESAID OBSERVATIONS CONFIRMED THE ENTIRE DISALLOWANCE OF R S . 11,93,677/ - MADE BY THE A.O. AND DISMISSED THE APPEAL. 6. THE ASSESSEE BEING AGGRIEVED WITH THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A) HAD CARRIED THE MATTER IN APPEAL BEFORE US. THE LD. AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE (FOR SHORT A.R) FOR THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT AS THE GOODS PURCHASED WERE CONSUMED BY THE ASSESSEE IN THE COURSE OF HIS BUSINESS AS THAT OF A CONTRACTOR, THEREFORE, THE A.O HAD ERRED IN PRITHVIRAJ G. CHARAYA ITA NO. 891/MUM/2017 8 MAKING THE DISALLOWANCE OF THE ENTIRE PURCHASES PERTAINING TO THE AFORESAID PARTIES. THE LD. A.R SUBMITTED THAT THE FACT THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD SUBSTANTIAL TURNOVER OF RS. 8,54,40,406/ - AND HAD FILED A RETURN OF INCOME DECLARING AN INCOME OF RS. 1,30,49,700/ - , IN ITSELF SUFFICIENTLY PROVED THAT THERE WAS NO REASON FOR THE ASSESSEE TO HAVE INDULGED IN MAKING A WRONG CLAIM OF PURCHASES OF A PETTY AMOUNT OF RS. 11,93,677/ - (SUPRA). THE LD . A.R TAKING US THROUGH PAGE 72 OF THE APB, WHICH IS A COMPILATION GIVING THE BIFURCATED DETAILS OF THE PURCHASES MADE BY THE ASSESSEE FROM THE AFOREMENTIONED PARTIES , WHICH AS PER THE ASSESSEE WERE CONSUMED IN THE CONTRACT WORK OF A VALUE AGGREGATING TO RS. 3,57,98,117/ - OF M/S TATA COMMUNICATION LTD EXECUTED BY THE ASSESSEE . IT WAS THUS AVERRED BY THE LD. A.R THAT NOW WHEN THE GOODS PURCHASED BY THE ASSESSEE FROM THE AFOREMENTIONED PARTIES HAD BEEN CONSUMED IN THE BUSINESS OF THE ASSESSEE, THEREFORE, TH E CIT(A) HAD ERRED IN SUSTAINING THE DISALLOWANCE OF THE ENTIRE PURCHASES OF RS. 11,93,677/ - WRONGLY MADE BY THE A.O . THE LD. A.R THUS SUBMITTED THAT THE ADDITION OF RS. 11,93,677/ - (SUPRA) MADE BY THE A.O AND THEREAFTER SUSTAINED BY THE CIT(A) MAY BE VACA TED. PER CONTRA, IT WAS SUBMITTED BY THE LD. DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE (FOR SHORT D.R) THAT AS THE ASSESSEE HAD FAILED TO PROVE THE CONSUMPTION OF THE MATERIAL IN THE COURSE OF HIS BUSINESS, THEREFORE, THE CIT(A) HAD RIGHTLY UPHELD THE DISALLOWANCE OF THE ENTIRE PURCHASES OF RS. 11,93,677/ - (SUPRA) IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSEE. IT WAS THUS SUBMITTED BY THE LD. D.R THAT THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE LACKED ANY MERIT AND WAS THUS LIABLE TO BE DISMISSED. 7 . WE HAVE HEARD THE AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVES FOR BOTH THE PARTIES, PERUSED THE ORDERS OF THE LOWER AUTHORITIES AND THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. WE HAVE GIVEN A THOUGHTFUL CONSIDERATION TO THE FACTS OF THE CASE AND ARE OF THE CONSIDERED VIEW THAT A PER USAL OF THE FACTS RECORDED BY THE LOWER AUTHORITIES AND THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON PRITHVIRAJ G. CHARAYA ITA NO. 891/MUM/2017 9 RECORD, THEREIN REVEAL BEYOND ANY SCOPE OF DOUBT THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD FAILED TO CORROBORATE HIS CLAIM AS REGARDS CONSUMPTION OF THE IMPUGNED PURCHASES OF THE GOODS CLAIMED T O HAVE BEEN MADE FROM THE AFOREMENTIONED HAWALA PARTIES . THE LD. A.R BY DRAWING OUR ATTENTION TO THE CHART PLACED AT PAGE 72 OF THE APB, HAD THEREIN TRIED TO IMPRESS UPON US THAT THE GOODS OF THE VALUE OF RS. 11, 93,679/ - (SUPRA) PURCHASED BY THE ASSESS EE FROM THE AFORESAID PARTIES WERE THEREAFTER CONSUMED IN THE COURSE OF EXECUTING ITS CONTRACT WORK OF A VALUE OF RS. 3,57,98,117/ - (SUPRA) FOR M/S TATA COMMUNICATIONS LTD. WE FIND THAT THE ASSESSEE EXCEPT FOR RAISING THE AFORESAID HOLLOW CLAIM, HAD HOWEVE R ABSOLUTELY FAILED TO PLACE ON RECORD ANY CONCRETE MATERIAL WHICH COULD GO TO SUPPORT HIS CLAIM THAT THE MATERIAL PURCHASED FROM THE AFOREMENTIONED PARTIES HAD FACTUALLY BEEN CONSUMED IN EXECUTING THE CONTRACT WORK OF M/S TATA COMMUNICATION LTD. THE AFOR ESAID CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE, IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY MATERIAL EVIDENCING THE SAID CONTENTION OF THE ASSESSEE, DOES NOT INSPIRE ANY CONFIDENCE AND CANNOT BE ACCEPTED. WE ARE UNABLE TO COMPREHEND THE BASIS ON WHICH THE AFORESAID CLAIM HAD BEEN RAISED BY THE AS SESSEE BEFORE US. WE FIND THAT THE CONTENTION OF THE ASSESSEE AND THE CHART FURNISHED BY THE ASSESSEE TO DRIVE HOME HIS CONTENTION THAT THE MATERIAL PURCHASED FROM THE ABOVEMENTIONED PARTIES HAD BEEN CONSUMED IN T H E COURSE OF EXECUTION OF THE CONTRACT/WO RK OF M/S TATA COMMUNICATION LTD IS NOTHING BETTER THEN A SELF SUITING CONTENTION RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE BEFORE US, WHICH AS OBSERVED BY US HEREINABOVE, IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY SUPPORTING MATERIAL/EVIDENCE CANNOT BE ACCEPTED. WE THUS NOT BEING PERSUADED TO A CCEPT THE AFORESAID CONTENTION OF THE ASSESSEE ARE NOT INCLINED TO ACCEPT THE SAME. WE BEING OF THE CONSIDERED VIEW THAT THE CIT(A) HAD PASSED A WELL REASONED ORDER, THUS FINDING OURSELVES TO BE IN AGREEMENT WITH THE VIEW TAKEN BY HIM, THEREFORE, FIND NO REASON TO DISLODGE THE SAME. WE THUS IN THE BACKDROP OF OUR AFORESAID PRITHVIRAJ G. CHARAYA ITA NO. 891/MUM/2017 10 OBSERVATIONS UPHOLD THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A) AND DISMISS THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE. 8. THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 30 .08.2017 SD/ - SD/ - ( RAJENDRA ) ( RAVISH SOOD ) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER MUMBAI ; 30 .08.2017 PS. ROHIT KUMAR / COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. / THE APPELLANT 2. / THE RESPONDENT. 3. ( ) / THE CIT(A) - 4. / CIT 5. , , / DR, ITAT, MUMBAI 6. / GUARD FILE . //TRUE COPY// / BY ORDER, / (DY./ASSTT. REGISTRAR) , / ITAT, MUMBAI PRITHVIRAJ G. CHARAYA ITA NO. 891/MUM/2017 11