Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

3.4 In the reasons to believe dated, 22 March 2017 it was mentioned as under:-

As per the information received from the Investigation Wing, Ludhiana, it has been found that the assessee company had taken bogus purchase bills from the concerns owned by Sh. Madan Lal Pahuja and Sh. Jatinder Kumar during the F.Y.2009-10 as per the details given below: -

2019] 110 Taxmann.com 64 (SC) SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Commissioner of Income Tax-7, New Delhi v. Odeon Builders (P.) Ltd [refer Page no 176-177of case law paper book] Section 37(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 - Business expenditure - Allowability of (Bogus purchase) - Certain portion of purchases made by assessee was disallowed - Commissioner (Appeals) found that entire disallowance was based on third party information gathered by Investigation Wing of Department, which had not been independently subjected to further verification by Assessing Officer and he had not provided copy of such statements to appellant, thus, denying opportunity of cross examination to appellant, who on other hand, had prima facie discharged initial burden of substantiating purchases through various documentation including purchase bills, transportation bills, confirmed copy of accounts and fact of payment through cheques, VAT Registration of sellers and their Income-tax Return - He held that purchases made by appellant was acceptable and disallowance was to be deleted - Tribunal dismissed revenue's appeal - High Court affirmed judgments of Commissioner (Appeals) and Tribunal being concurrent factual findings - Whether no substantial question of law arose from impugned order of Tribunal

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 :-