Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

6. Ld. AR Mr. Soparkar has contested that the assessee has maintained the quantitative details of purchases and sale of steel. He has pleaded that the auditor has given the quantitative details as per the Special Auditor which confirms the maintenance of quantitative record. It was enquired from the Bench that whether the stock register and quantity-wise purchases and sales are available on record, however, the answer is negative. Further, it has also been enquired that whether the weighment details, excise gate pas, transportation details etc., are on record and again the answer was a negative. The Ld. AR has.in formed that almost in identical situation in the case of ACIT v. M/s Kulubi Steel in 1TA No1568/Ahd/2008 order dated 16-12-2010 vide para-8 has held as under:-

Relevant findings of the ITAT in the case of Anubhai Shivalal reads are under:

3. At the time of hearing before us, it is submitted by the learned counsel that the addition sustained is excessive. In support of this contention he referred to the decision of the Tribunal in the case of ITO Vs. Sun Steel 92 TTJ (Ahd) 1126 wherein the Tribunal has sustained the addition of Rs.50,000/-on account of bogus purchases. However, we find that the facts in the above case were different. In the above case, the assessee has shown purchases of Rs.27,39,410/-, sale of Rs.28,17,207/- and GP at Rs.94,740/-. The Assessing Officer made the addition of Rs.27,39,407/- for bogus purchases. If the above sum is added to the GP, the GP works out Rs.28,34,1247/- which was more than the sale itself. The Tribunal held that it is impossible that the GP is more than the sale itself. The Tribunal also found that the assessee has maintained the quantitative details in respect of materials purchased and sold. Considering peculiar facts of that case, the Tribunal arrived at the conclusion that it would be fair and reasonable to estimate the addition at Rs.50,000/- as against the addition of Rs.27,39,407/- made by the Assessing Officer.

"The assessee has to discharge the primary onus as to the genuineness and bonafide of the transaction of purchase of goods.

ITA NO. 4689/MUM/2019 (A.Y. 2009-10) Shri Madhukar Yashwant Kutrekar It is observed that the A.O. has made addition of the entire purchases amount to Rs. 1.13 crores by making additions of Rs, 1,31,88,227/- being peak credit payable during the year for purchases to these parties which included balance of Rs. 18,43,451/- for purchases made in the earlier year, while the AO has, however, not doubted the sales made by the assessee against these purchases. The assessee has reconciled the quantitative details of the stock reflected in these purchases with quantitative details of stock as per sale invoices. The A.O. has doubted the purchases from these four alleged accommodation entry providers being hawala dealers as Concluded by Sales Tax Department of Government of Maharashtra to be bogus purchases, that these four parties only provided accommodation bills and the goods were never supplied by these parties and the assessee allegedly made purchases from some other parties for which payments were made through undisclosed income. Thus, the A.O. observed that the assessee has purchased the material from someone else while bogus bills were organized by these hawala dealers, hence, section 69C of the Act was invoked by the AO and additions were made by the AO. The conclusion of the Id. CIT(A) that the assessee has purchased material from some other dealers but quantitative reconciliation of the stock was duly done by the assessee of the sale and purchase and hence the profit element in this accommodation entries are to be added to the income cannot be faulted. The Id. CIT(A) restricted the addition by estimating GP ratio of 12.5% of Rs. 1,13,44,778/- being purchases from these alleged four accommodation entry providers. We do not find any infirmity in the well reasoned order of the Id. CIT(A) whereby net profit was estimated which was a reasonable estimation made by learned C/T(A) and we sustain/affirm the order of learned CIT(A). In the result, we dismiss both the appeal of the assessee as well of Revenue. We order accordingly."