Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

2.That the ld.CIT(A), swayed by the so-called prevailing menace of bogus bills, misconstrued the facts and the legal position of this case, to uphold the addition of Rs.4,26,93,470/-, as made by the ld.AO, alleging that the purchases made by assessee of the said value, were bogus.

3.That the ld.CIT(A) was wholly unjustified in holding that the assessee failed to produce one Mr Madan Lal Pahuja, the supplier, whose statement, recorded by ADIT, (Inv), Ludhiana, not witnessed by anyone else, was the sole basis to initiate proceedings u/s.147/148.

10. That once the purchases under Vat, and sales in IT proceedings , have been accepted in the hands of the assessee , and sale in the hands of other including Madan Lal Pahuja , have been accepted , no addition can be made by the assessee officer.

11. However, the Ld. CIT(A) upheld the addition on account of bogus purchases, by observingas under: -

"Information is available on 'record with the AO from Investigation Wing of the Department regarding bogus bills issued by Shri Madan Lal Pahuja; who was operating a number of concerns for this purpo,le. A statement of Shri Madan. Lal Pahuja was recorded ' on 07.01.2015 by, the ADIT(Inv.), Ludhiana wherein he confirmed that, he along with hi's family, members were providing 'bogus bills of sales/purchases to various patties on commission basis and were operating seven firms for this purpose. It was also admitted that actually no physical transactions of sale/purchase took place for this purpose and only paper bills were prdvided.

17. We have considered the rival contention and perused the material available on record, including the judgments cited at bar during the hearing by both parties. Admittedly, the reopening in the present case was made by the assessing officer, pursuant to the report received from the ADIT(Investigation), Ludhiyana. Based on that report, the reasons to reopen were recordedon 22/3/2017. The reasons recorded specifically mentioned that the information was received from the investigation wing, Ludhiana mentioning that Madan Lal Pahuja had issued bogus purchase bills during the F.Y.2009-10. The investigation wing recorded the statement of Madan Lal Pahuja on7.1.2015 wherein he had admitted that he had provided bogus bills to the assessee company through his HUF propriety concern and other concern namelyM/s Lovy Steel & Allied Industries, Mandi Gobindgarh. It was further mentioned in the reasons to reopen that the concerns of Madan Lal Pahuja are no more operational since 1 April 2014. It was further mentioned that the another person namelySh. Jatinder Kumar Proprietory ofM/s Shree Nath Ispat Udyog, was also providing the bogus purchase bills to the assessee, howeverSh. Jatinder Kumar Proprietory , was not traceable. It was also noted down by the reasons to believe that he had made independent verification from the assessment record of the assessee for the assessment year 2010-11, and mentioned that the assessee had received bogus purchase bills Rs. 2.06crore and Rs 1.05 crore from M/s Shree Nath Ispat Udyog, Mandi Gobindgarh and M/s Shiv BholeKirpa Traders, Ludhiana.

19. The Assessing Officer has formed his opinion for reopening the assessment on the basis of the report of the investigating wing of the revenue. During the recording of the statement of Shri Madan Lal Pahuja, the investigating wing observed that he was in to the activity of providing the bogus purchase invoices to various persons. While recording the reasons to reopen the assessment, the Assessing Officer has only mentioned the details of the statement recorded by the investigating wing. He had merely relied upon the report of the investigating wing. Further, the Assessing Officer has not provided the copy of the statement of Shri Madan Lal Pahuja recorded on 07.01.2015 to the Assessee. In our view, it is essential for the Assessing Officer to provide the copy of the foundation fact ,namely the statement of Shri Madan Lal Pahuja,to the Assessee at the time of providing reasons for reopen the assessment. The same has not been done by the Assessing Officer, which is contrary to the law laid down by Delhi High Court in the matter of Sabh Infrastructure IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI, W.P.(C) 1357/2016. Further, from the reading of the answer given by Shri Madan Lal Pahuja in response to question no. 6 and 8 (APB, Pg. 173) it is clear that the name of the Assessee have not been mentioned by the said Shri Madan Lal Pahuja, as beneficiary party to whom the alleged bogus bills were given by him. He had merely mentioned the name of Brokers with whom, he was carrying the transactions. However there is no evidence to link, the brokers, assessee and MrPhauja on record. Further there is no evidence brought to record , that the assessee had recerived bogus bills from the entities of Phauja. Moreover he had not stated that family concerns of the Phauja were into providing the bogus bills . We are reproducing the Question no 6 and 8 and answers given by MrPhauja , which are as under :-