Case Law Details
M/s. Aquatic Remedies Pvt. Ltd. Vs The DCIT (ITAT Mumbai)
The Revenue has alleged the assessee of taking bogus purchases and accommodation bills on account of such purchased. In our considered opinion this refers to two possibilities.
1) A person is purchasing goods from another person without any bill and then taking purchase bills from a third person to show the quantities purchased. Under this category, there is physical movement of goods.
2) A person is not purchasing any goods but simply taking bills showing purchases. Under this category, there is no physical movement of the goods.
Keeping in mind the above possibilities, we are not sure whether assessee’s case falls in the first category or second category. In our understanding of the facts of the present case in all probability the assessee’s case falls in the first category i.e. goods have been purchased from one party and bills have been taken from another party and there is physical movement of goods. Our view is also fortified by the facts that there is no adverse inference in so far as sales are concerned. If the assessee had not purchased goods, then how it has effected the sales. It is more important so because the assessee is trading in pharmaceutical products which have batch Nos. embedded on it and it cannot be sold without performing the formalities of FDA and other relevant laws relating to the pharmaceutical business.
Please become a Premium member. If you are already a Premium member, login here to access the full content.
