Subscribe To Our Free Newsletter:

Anuj Kumar Varshney vs. ITO (ITAT Jaipur)

COURT:
CORAM: ,
SECTION(S): , ,
GENRE:
CATCH WORDS:
COUNSEL:
DATE: October 22, 2014 (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: October 24, 2014 (Date of publication)
AY: 2007-08
FILE: Click here to download the file in pdf format
CITATION:
Bogus purchases: Filing of confirmation of suppliers with PAN and TIN number are not sufficient to prove the purchases are genuine if they are not supported by other facts including delivery of goods & presence of suppliers

The department had gathered the information through survey and search seizure in above parties and they categorically admitted that they have provided entries and not doing any purchase and sale of gems and jewellery. Even then Assessing Officer asked to produce these parties for verification which could not be produced by it. The Assessing Officer also issued summons U/s 131 of the Act, which was partly served and partly returned back unserved. The assessee’s argument that case laws applied by the Assessing Officer i.e. Sanjay Oil Cake Industries and Vijay Protein are not squarely applicable, is not accepted as such because primary onus is on the assessee to produce these parties for verification before the Assessing Officer. In the assessment, the Assessing Officer has a right to estimate the profits on a reasonable basis, adopting the base provided by ITAT judgments cannot to be termed as unscientific, unreasonable or arbitrary. Filing of some confirmation with PAN and TIN number are not sufficient to prove the purchases are genuine as they are to be supported by other facts including delivery of goods, as held by the various courts. The appellant cannot directly or indirectly put blinkers on investigations of the Assessing Officer to compel him to do it as per sweet will of the assessee. It is not permissible that the assessee will direct the Assessing Officer to enquire his case at his own way, which is not required by law. The assessee wanted to shift his onus on the Assessing Officer on flimsy ground. It is rampant practice in gems and jewellery business in Jaipur that the assessee has been getting accommodation bills to reduce the profitability which has been established by the department. The Hon’ble Rajasthan High Court recently in the case of Venus Arts & Gems Vs. ITO vide order dated 20/08/2014 has also confirmed the addition on unverifiable purchases @ 21.96% and also found order of the ITAT being purely a finding of fact by the two appellate authorities as to what should be a reasonable G.P. rate after rejection of books of account and various infirmities noticed by the lower authorities and in their view no question of law much less substantial question of law can be said to emerge out of the order of the Tribunal.

2 comments on “Anuj Kumar Varshney vs. ITO (ITAT Jaipur)
  1. AO himself is a fact finding authority that he must satisfy as such before any such judicial body;

    AO is not a judge, but he has to strictly follow the rule under which he has to follow.

    if AO fails in his rules of game naturally he failed in his allotted tasks.

    if on his own motion if he notices it is within his jurisdiction to withdraw his notices and save unnecessary burden on assesse as also on Revenue as also he has to ensure that tax payers monies are not squandered in unnecessary litigation

    if AOs perform their actions in saving meaningless litigation costs, depending on notional savings such duty bound AOs may be given out of turn promotions in the interest of public good besides the govt encourages the potential disciplined officers, for they are creditable public servants too and citizens would appreciate such good officer like quality officers

    again indeed one finds AOs funtions are so much complicated as he has to deal with different kinds of business assesses, so he is to be all the more careful is my view

  2. AO himself is a fact finding authority that he must satisfy as such before any such judicial body;

    AO is not a judge, but he has to strictly follow the rule under which he has to follow.

    if AO fails in his rules of game naturally he failed in his allotted tasks.

    if on his own motion if he notices it is within his jurisdiction to withdraw his notices and save unnecessary burden on assesse as also on Revenue as also he has to ensure that tax payers monies are not squandered in unnecessary litigation

    if AOs perform their actions in saving meaningless litigation costs, depending on notional savings such duty bound AOs may be given out of turn promotions in the interest of public good besides the govt encourages the potential disciplined officers, for they are creditable public servants too and citizens would appreciate such good officer like quality officers

    again indeed one finds AOs funtions are so much complicated as he has to deal with different kinds of business assesses, so he is to be all the more careful is my view

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

*