Case Law Details

Case Name : ITO Vs Paresh Arvind Gandhi (ITAT Mumbai)
Appeal Number : ITA No. 5706/Mum/2013
Date of Judgement/Order : 13/05/2015
Related Assessment Year :
Courts : All ITAT (7824) ITAT Mumbai (2202)

Brief Facts of the Case and Question

Brief FactsAssessee, an individual,proprietor of M/s. Hydro Pure System,is engaged in the business of installation,erection and servicing of water purifying systems.He is deriving income from business and other sources. He filed his return of income on 28.9.10,declaring total income of Rs.18.40 lacs .The AO completed the assessment u/s.143(3) of the Act on 1/3/ 2013,determining the income of the assessee at Rs.1,56,05,880/

Question Raised:

On Account of Bogus Purchases if supplier is treated as hawala dealer by Vat Authorities Does this form as valid ground for invoking provisions of section 69C

Contention of the Assessee:

The assessee was not satisfied with the act of assessing officere,the assessee filed a letter dt.12.2.2013 and argued that the purchases made by him were genuine, that purchase of material was duly recorded in the books of account, that the parties concerned had submitted relevant supporting documents, i.e. sales tax confirmation and copies sales tax return, that those documents were submitted during assessment proceedings ,that there was no change in the GP ratio, that material purchased during the year was used in production of equipments.

Aggrieved by the order of the AO,the assessee preferred an appeal before the First Appellate authority(FAA).Before him, it was contented that all material purchase and issuance made were duly recorded and accounted for in inward and outward movement register, that the assessee submitted material register before the AO showing the receipt of material from the parties mentioned in the show cause notice. He also furnished copies of invoice and L/R of receipt of inward material purchased, bank statement showing payment made by cross Account payee cheques to the above mentioned parties, copies of VAT returns, IT returns and confirmation of the impugned parties along with their MVAT reports and acknowledgements. It was argued that the AO had not treated the purchases bogus, that he was merely relying on the list of the suspicious dealers published by the VAT department

Contention of Revenue:

During the assessment proceedings the AO directed assessee to furnish a list of persons from whom he had made purchases. He found that following parties from whom the assessee had shown purchases were appearing in the list of “suspicious dealers” who were indulged in issuing only bills without delivery of any goods/material for a commission as per the official website of sales tax department

  • Bhagwati Trading Company 23, 78,818/-
  • Manav Impex 39,910/-
  • Prayan Trading Company 23, 72,916/-
  • Sampark Steels 10, 78,220/-
  • Savita International 19,597/-
  • Vardhman Trading Company 46, 73,578/-
  • Vitarag Trading Company 32, 02,628/-

Total 1,37,65,667/-

The assessee was asked as to why the alleged purchase from the above mentioned seven parties aggregating to 1.37 crores should not be treated as unexplained expenditure. The AO provided the assessee the copies of statement recorded by the sales tax department

Held by ITAT:

ITAT held that It is observed from records that AO had not doubted the genuineness of the purchase but had made the disallowance of Rs.1.37 crores invoking the provisions of 69C of the Act. ITAT further noted that in similar circumstances the Tribunal had deleted the addition made by the AO in the of of DCIT vs Rajiv G Kalathil (ITAT Mumbai) ITA No.6727/Mum/2012 which was relied by the Assessee.

It was held that AO had made the addition as one of the supplier was declared a hawala dealer by the VAT Department. We agree that it was a good starting point for making further investigation and take it to logical end.But AO left the job at initial point itself. Suspicion of highest degree cannot take place of evidence. He could have called for the details of the bank accounts of the suppliers to find out as whether there was any immediate cash withdrawal from their account. In view of the same addition of Rs. 1,37,65,667/- made u/s 69C of the I.T. Act are not sustainable.

As a result,appeal filed by the AO stands dismissed as the grounds of appeal is decided against the Assessing Officer.

Download Judgment/Order

More Under Income Tax

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Search Posts by Date

March 2021