Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Mumbai
Topline Writing Instruments P. Ltd, Goa vs Acit Cen Cir 41, Mumbai on 21 March, 2017
आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, अिधकरण मुंबई "ई" खंडपीठ मे Income-tax Appellate Tribunal -"E"Bench Mumbai सव ी राजे ,लेखा सद य एवं अमरजीत सह, याियक सद य Before S/Sh.Rajendra,Accountant Member and Amarjit Singh,Judicial Member आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A./233 to 235/Mum/2011, िनधा रण वष /Assessment Year: 2002-03 to 2004-05 आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A./236 to 237/Mum/2011, िनधा रण वष /Assessment Year: 2006-07 to 2007-08 आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A./239/Mum/2011, िनधा रण वष /Assess ment Year: 2005-06 आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A./4738 to 4743/Mum/2013, िनधा रण वष /Assessment Year: 2002-03 to 2007-08 M/s. Topline Writing Instruments P.Ltd. ACIT-Central Circle-41 l/71, Verna Electronics City, Verna, Goa Aayakar Bhavan, m.k. Road Vs. Mumbai-400 020. Mumbai-400 020.
PAN:AAACT 5117 E
(अपीलाथ /Appellant) ( यथ / Respondent)
राज
व क ओर से / Revenue by: Shri Anand Mohan-CIT-DR
अपीलाथ क ओर से /Assessee by: None
सुनवाई क तारीख / Date of Hearing: 21/03/2017
घोषणा क तारीख / Date of Pronouncement: 21.03.2017
खंडपीठ के अनुसार
ार PER BENCH-
Challenging the orders dated 30/09/2010 and 28/03/2013 of CIT(A)-38, Mumbai the assessee has filed the appeals for the above mentioned AY.s.As the issue raised by the assessee in these appeals are common,so,for the sake of convenience,we are adjudicating all the appeals by this common order.Assessee-company is engaged in the business of manufacturing of stationery and carbon paper.
When the case was called for hearing of the group cases none appeared on behalf of the assessee,though a letter of adjournment was found on record. In the adjournment letter it was stated that assessee was in process of collecting material to file paper-book.The matter had been adjourned earlier on the request of the assessee. On 18/11/2015,cost of Rs.1,000/- per file was also imposed on assessee for not arguing the case on that day.In pursuance of the said order of the Tribunal,the assessee had made payment of Rs.12,000/- in Prime Minister Relief Fund.Even after that,assessee sought for adjournments on three occasions.Considering the peculiar circumstances,we are deciding the appeals on the basis of available material with us.
Brief facts:-
A search and survey action u/s.132 of the Act was carried out at the business premises of Kores(India) Ltd.on 19.9.2006 along with its sister concerns including the assessee.Besides, a survey u/s.133A was carried out in the business premises of the assessee situated at Verna Industrial Estate,Verna, Goa. A notice u/s. 153A was issued to the assessee on 29/04/2008 .
233/M/11 & others,Topline Writing Instruments P.Ltd.
In response to the notice,it filed its return on 05/06/2008 declaring income at Rs.nil, after claiming set off of unabsorbed depreciation.The Assessing Officer(AO)completed the assessment u/s.143(3) r.w.s. 153A of the Act determining income at Rs.8.80 lakhs. ITA/233/Mum/2011 (2002-03):
2.Effective Ground of appeal is about disallowance of bogus purchases. During the course of search and seizure proceeding conducted at the main office premises of Kores certain documents,including signed cheques pertaining to the assessee,were recovered.Perusal of the documents revealed that one of the employees of Kores was orally placing purchase order on behalf of the assessee as well as releasing payments to the suppliers, that the inward material register maintained at the business premises located in Goa contained several interpolated entries,that the entries of such purchases pertained to one supplier namely Vertex Chemicals (VC).
2.1.During the assessment proceedings,the AO recorded statement of one of the partners of VC u/s.131 of the Act. Based on the statements,he concluded that the details of transporta - tion required to be provided by the supplier to support the genuineness of the purchases made by the assessee-were not furnished.He made reference to purchase bills of the assessee which did not mention the details of transportation.He took into consideration the fact that purchase order were never issued in writing from any person of the assessee, that only oral orders were placed from time to time by one Satya Narayan Shah (SNS), that SNS was finalizing the purchase order for the assessee though he did not have any written authorisation for it. VC confirmed the modus operandi mentioned by AO.He held that Kores was indirectly manipulat
-ing the purchases made by the assessee,that all the time director of assessee could not satisfactorily explain the interpolation in the inward-register.Accordingly,the AO made addition of Rs.18.18 lakhs to the total income of the assessee under the head bogus purchases.
3.Aggrieved by the order of the AO,the assessee preferred an appeal before the First Appellate Authority(FAA).Before him, it was argued that the interpolation of entries and lack of evidence of transportation of material purchased from VC was applicable to only in respect of certain purchases and not in respect of all purchases made from VC, that the AO had not established any quantitative discrepancies/infirmities.The assessee also made a request that the purchase bills and inward register to be made available during the appeal hearing so as to demonstrate the interpolation of entries was applicable to certain transactions only.The FAA directed the AO to appear with the register/documents requested by the assessee.
2233/M/11 & others,Topline Writing Instruments P.Ltd.
3.1.After considering the submission of the assessee,analysis made by the then AO of the seized document and inspection of inward registers,the FAA held that interpolation of the entries in the inward registers of the assessee and lack of evidence of transportation on the invoices raised by VC were true in respect of many a transactions,that same was not true for all purchases made from VC,that the assessee was not able to satisfactorily explain the unusual nature of its dependence on SNS of Kores,that SNS was neither an employee nor was an authorized person for purchasing the goods,that it was not a mere coincidence that purchases of same nature and sources identified by AO in the assessment order were not fully supported by the evidence or transportation, that there was no explanation about inflated purchases.Considering these facts,he directed the AO to recompute the disallowance of bogus purchases by taking into account all the interpolated entries in the inward register as well as purchase bills which did not bear details of transportation.
4.As stated earlier none appeared on behalf of the assessee and Departmental Representative (DR) supported the order of the FAA.
As nothing has been brought on record against the finding given by the FAA so, confirming the same,we decide effective Ground of appeal against the assessee.
ITA.s 234/Mum/2011 to 237/Mum/2011 AY.s.2003-04,2004-05, 2006-07 and 2007-08:
5.In these appeals solitary effective Ground of appeal is about bogus purchases. We are tabulating additions made by the AO for the respective AY.s.
SN. AY. Bogus purchases from VC (In lakhs)
1. 2003-04 19.63
2. 2004-05 27.81
3. 2005-06 27.17
4. 2006-07 29.64
5. 2007-08 14.33
6.In the appellate proceedings the FAA gave similar direction that were passed for AY.2002-
03.Following our order for that AY.,we uphold the order of FAA and decide the effective Ground of appeal against the assessee for all the A.Y.s ITA/4738/MUM/2013-AY 2002-03:
7.In pursuance of the order of the FAA dt.30.9.2010 the A.O passed an order on 29.3.2012 giving effect to his order.During the order giving effect proceedings,the AO gave an opportunity,vide his letter dt.14.6.2011,to the assessee about the bogus purchases.Vide its 3 233/M/11 & others,Topline Writing Instruments P.Ltd.
letter,dated 22.3.2012,the assessee filed his submissions before the AO.After making the verification,the AO computed the revised total income of the assessee at Rs.8.39 lakhs. 7.1.Aggrieved by the said order the assessee preferred an appeal before the FAA . The first hearing was scheduled for 11.03.2013,but the assessee filed an application and sought adjournment.The FAA adjourned the matter to 18.03.2013.As per the FAA there was no compliance on part of the assessee nor was any material submitted in support of the Grounds of appeal.He dismissed the appeal treating it to be infructuous. 7.2.We have mentioned the facts of non appearance of assessee before us and rejection of adjournment application filed by the assessee,before us,in the earlier part of our order. Nothing has been brought on record to controvert the finding given by the FAA.Therefore, confirming his order we decide effective Ground of appeal against the assessee.
ITA.S/ 4739-4743/MUM.2013 AY.S 2003-04 to AY 2007-08
8.The issue raised by the assessee is identical to the issue agitated for AY 2002-03. Following our order for that AY.,we decide the effective Ground of appeal against the assessee for remaining AY.s As a result, all the appeals filed by the assessee stand dismissed.
फलतः िनधा
रती ारा दािखल क ग सभी अपील नामंजूर क जाती ह .
st
Order pronounced in the open court on 21 March , 2017.
आदेश क घोषणा खुले यायालय म दनांक 21 माच ,2017 को क गई ।
Sd/- Sd/-
(अमरजीत सह / Amarjit Singh ) (राजे
/ Rajendra)
याियक सद
य / JUDICIAL MEMBER लेखा सद य / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER
मुंबई Mumbai; दनांक/Dated : 21.03.2017.
Jv.Sr.PS.
आदेश क ितिलिप अ ेिषत/Copy of the Order forwarded to :
1.Appellant /अपीलाथ 2. Respondent / यथ
3.The concerned CIT(A)/संब अपीलीय आयकर आयु , 4.The concerned CIT /संब आयकर आयु
5.DR " " Bench, ITAT, Mumbai /िवभागीय ितिनिध, खंडपीठ,आ.अ. याया.मुंबई
6.Guard File/गाड फाईल स यािपत ित //True Copy// आदेशानुसार/ BY ORDER, उप/सहायक पंजीकार Dy./Asst. Registrar आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, मुंबई /ITAT, Mumbai.4