Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

........ for which I am being paid very nominal amount! charged nominal commission and so on ................

6.11. It is important to mention that on account of survey! enquiry action of the S T Department, generally genuine parties will never run away from their locations. by leaving aside their business set-up and other trading items. It is pertinent to mention here that on account of above action of the S T Department; all such bogus parties have run away from their sites. It is surprise to note that out of thousands of such hawala parties, not even a single hawala party, could be located, after action of the S T Department and in other cases also neither of the appellant could furnish the verifiable addresses of these hawala parties. Not even singly entity was found having any trading stock as their sites, during the course of closure of the business. This clearly establish the fact that in the market, the seam of hawala billing was going on, in a systematic manner, to generate the cash, for the purpose, which is well known in the trade, in the form of' parallel economy for illegal activities. This seam was going on in the market, in the name of persons / employees (who are not man of means), who do not have their permanent establishment in the city/operating from rented premises, therefore, run away from the scene, hence not traceable. In view of these facts, in my considered opinion, this type of seam should not be legalized, by restricting the disallowance of bogus I.T.A. No. 6056 & 6057/Mum/2016 purchases to a certain percentage, unless and until it is proved that the appellant had affected, the certain purchases from grey markets due to compelling circumstances, as the same were not available in the regular market, as has been held in the case of M/s. Kanchwala Gems Pvt. Ltd. vs. JCIT 288 ITR 10 (SC) 6.12. Keeping in view of the facts in entirely, as discussed above and appellants failure to furnish the firmed copy of ledger account, bank statements of the suppliers, item wise quantitative tally's etc. the books of the appellant are not tenable as per provisions of section 145(3) of the Act, therefore rejected.