Search Results For: 69C


COURT:
CORAM: ,
SECTION(S): ,
GENRE:
CATCH WORDS: , ,
COUNSEL:
DATE: October 31, 2019 (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: November 9, 2019 (Date of publication)
AY: 2012-13 to 2017-18
FILE: Click here to view full post with file download link
CITATION:
S. 68/ 69C: Bogus share capital + Bogus purchases: Photocopies of blank share transfer forms, blank signed receipts etc necessary for transfer of shares found with assessee are not admissible as evidence u/s 61 of Evidence Act and not incriminating in nature. On merits, all investors are assessed & have filed confirmations with trail of funds. AO did not make further inquiry into the documentary evidences or verify the trail of source of funds. As regards bogus purchases, the AO cannot blow hot & cold by disallowing the purchases from a party as bogus while treating sales to same party as genuine

Assessee produced sufficient documentary evidences before the A.O. to prove that money routed from the assessee itself which came back to the assessee in the form of share capital/premium, therefore, assessee proved identity of the Investors, their creditworthiness and genuineness of the transaction in the matter and as such have been able to prove ingredients of Section 68 of the I.T. Act. The A.O. however did not make any further enquiry on the documentary evidences filed by the assessee. The A.O. did not verify the trail of the source of funds received by assessee through various entities as explained above. The A.O. thus, failed to conduct scrutiny of the documents at assessment stage and merely suspected the transaction between the Investor Companies and the assessee company despite the fact that in the deviation report the A.O. expressed doubts in making addition into the matter. It may also be noted here that no cash have been reported to have been deposited in the accounts of the assessee, the Investor Companies and other related parties

COURT:
CORAM: ,
SECTION(S): ,
GENRE:
CATCH WORDS: ,
COUNSEL: ,
DATE: April 10, 2019 (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: September 6, 2019 (Date of publication)
AY: 2007-08
FILE: Click here to view full post with file download link
CITATION:
Bogus purchases in s. 153D search assessment: There is serious suspicion about the conduct of the assessee in taking additional ground challenging the issue of approval u/s 153D for the first time before the Tribunal. The assessee is making an attempt is derail the issue on merits and to escape on technical ground. The affidavits filed by the AOs coupled with circumstantial evidences available in the assessment folders clearly establish the fact of obtaining necessary approval u/s 153D though copy of approval letter is not available in the assessment record. Argument that only profit can be assessed is not correct. 100% addition u/s 69C towards bogus purchases confirmed (NK Proteins 292 CTR 354 (SC) followed)

When assessee goes to question the administrative procedure, rather contending its case on merits, that too, after a lapse of 4 to 5 years, then obviously, a doubt arises about intend of the assessee in taking this ground and such an attempt is derail the issue on merits and to escape on technical ground. Therefore, we are of the considered view that there is no merit in the additional ground taken by the assessee challenging validity of assessment order passed by the AO u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 153A of the Income-tax Act, 1961.

COURT:
CORAM: ,
SECTION(S): ,
GENRE:
CATCH WORDS: , ,
COUNSEL: ,
DATE: January 17, 2019 (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: January 19, 2019 (Date of publication)
AY: 2011-12
FILE: Click here to view full post with file download link
CITATION:
S. 147 Reopening of Bogus Sales/ Purchases: If the AO disallowed 2.5% of alleged bogus purchases during the regular assessment, he cannot reopen on the ground that as per N. K. Proteins Ltd 2017-TIOL-23-SC-IT the entire amount should have been disallowed as this amounts to change of opinion

In other words, during the previous reassessment proceedings, the Assessing Officer examined the alleged bogus sales of the assessee, taxed 2.25% thereof as assessee’s additional income and passed the order of assessment accordingly. The Assessing Officer now believes that taxing 2.25% of the sales, was an error and instead the entire amount should have been added to the assessee’s income. This would be a mere change of opinion

COURT:
CORAM: ,
SECTION(S):
GENRE:
CATCH WORDS: ,
COUNSEL:
DATE: October 23, 2018 (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: May 15, 2018 (Date of publication)
AY: 2011-12
FILE: Click here to view full post with file download link
CITATION:
S. 69C Bogus Purchases (100% disallowance confirmed): The right of cross-examination is not absolute. No prejudice is caused to the assessee by non granting of cross examination if the assessee has not discharged the primary onus. The fact that purchase bills are produced and payment is made through banking channels is not sufficient if the other evidence is lacking

No prejudice is caused to the assessee by non granting of opportunity of cross examination by the authorities below as right of cross examination is not absolute as in the instant case even primary onus that fell on the assessee did not stood discharged. Had assessee discharged its primary onus, but still the authorities proceed to prejudice assessee based solely on the incriminating statements/affidavits of third parties recorded at the back of the assessee, the right of the assessee to cross examine these third parties will become absolute. It is not a case that the authorities below have merely/solely relied on the statement/affidavit of third parties namely hawala dealers recorded at the back of the assessee to cause prejudice to the assessee rather primary onus that lay on the assessee was not discharged by the assessee

COURT:
CORAM: ,
SECTION(S):
GENRE:
CATCH WORDS: ,
COUNSEL:
DATE: April 13, 2018 (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: April 19, 2018 (Date of publication)
AY: 2011-12
FILE: Click here to view full post with file download link
CITATION:
Bogus Purchases: The fact that the supplier admitted to issuing bogus bills does not necessarily mean that he had issued accommodation bills to the assessee. There is subtle but very important difference in issuing bogus bills and issuing accommodation bills to a particular party. The difference becomes very important when a supplier in his affidavit admits supply of goods. As far as sales are concerned there is no doubt about the genuineness of such sales. It is also a fact that suppliers were paying VAT and were filing their returns of income. In response to the notices issued by the AO u/s 133(6) of the Act, the supplier admitted the genuineness of the transaction. Accordingly, the purchases cannot be treated as bogus

We find that DJ had admitted of issuing bogus bills. But, nowhere he had admitted that he had issued accommodation bills to the assessee. In our opinion, there is subtle but very important difference in issuing bogus bills and issuing accommodation bills to a particular party. The difference becomes very important when a supplier in his affidavit admits supply of goods.In this matter, the assessee had made no local sales and goods were exported, as stated earlier. So, as far as sales are concerned there is no doubt about the genuineness of such sales. It is also a fact that suppliers were paying VAT and were filing their returns of income.In response to the notices issued by the AO,under section 133(6) of the Act, the supplier had admitted the genuineness of the transaction

COURT:
CORAM: ,
SECTION(S):
GENRE:
CATCH WORDS: ,
COUNSEL:
DATE: December 21, 2017 (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: March 9, 2018 (Date of publication)
AY: 2009-10, 2010-11
FILE: Click here to view full post with file download link
CITATION:
Bogus Purchases: The fact that s. 133(6) notices could not be served upon the alleged vendors and they were not physically available at the given addresses does not falsify the claim of the assessee that the purchases are genuine if the assessee has produced other evidence and made payments through banking channels

Anyhow, after receipt of the information from DGIT(Inv.) Mumbai, the Assessing Officer issued the notice u/s 133(6) of the Act to all the parties but the said noticed were not served upon the said parties. The Assessing Officer also deputed the tax inspector to verify the genuineness of the claim and to know about the existence said 20 parties but the 17 parties were not available at the given address. However, notices served upon the Sampart Steel, Revika Trade Impex P. Ltd., Jindal Corporation but these parties nowhere submitted the required information. Sufficient evidence has been submitted by the assessee before the AO

COURT:
CORAM: ,
SECTION(S):
GENRE:
CATCH WORDS: ,
COUNSEL:
DATE: September 20, 2017 (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: September 27, 2017 (Date of publication)
AY: 2010-11, 2011-12
FILE: Click here to view full post with file download link
CITATION:
S. 69C Bogus purchases: If the AO has not rejected the books of accounts and has only doubted the genuineness of the suppliers but not the genuineness of the purchases and if the payments are made by account payee cheques, s. 69C is not attracted. S. 69C cannot be applied where all purchase and sales transactions are part of regular books of accounts. The basic precondition for invoking s. 69C is that the expenditure incurred by the assessee should be out of books of accounts

The AO or the FAA have not rejected the books of accounts of the assessee nor have doubted the purchases made by it. The recognised principles of accountancy and tax jurisprudence hold that no sales can take place without purchases. Thus, the case under appeal is not about non genuineness of purchases itself, but it is about non genuineness of suppliers. Whether provisions of section 69C of the Act can be applied in the matters where all the purchase and sales transactions part of regular books of accounts. Basic precondition for invoking the section 69C is that the expenditure incurred by the assessee should be out of books of accounts. Here, the payments to the suppliers, as stated earlier, have been made by cheques. So, it cannot be held that expenses were incurred by the assessee outside the books of accounts. Section 69C was introduced in to the statute with a specific purpose

COURT:
CORAM: ,
SECTION(S):
GENRE:
CATCH WORDS: ,
COUNSEL:
DATE: August 29, 2017 (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: September 25, 2017 (Date of publication)
AY: -
FILE: Click here to view full post with file download link
CITATION:
S. 69C "On Money": If the unaccounted expenditure incurred is from the 'on money' received by the assessee, then, the question of making any addition u/s 69C does not arise because the source of the expenditure is duly explained. It is only the 'on money' which can be considered for the purpose of taxation. Once the 'on money' is considered as a revenue receipt, then any expenditure out of such money cannot be treated as unexplained expenditure, for that would amount to double addition in respect of the same amount

If the unaccounted expenditure is determined, then, necessarily the question which would arise for consideration before the Tribunal is whether the Assessing Officer was justified in making addition under Section 69C for the years under consideration. The Tribunal, in para 39 of the order under challenge, found that the explanation as derived from the records and placed by both can be traced to the ‘on money’ received at the time of booking/sale of shops. The statement of the senior partner is referred. The senior partner admitted that the sums have been received as ‘on money’ and at the stage aforesaid. Therefore, both the amounts, namely the ‘on money’ as well as the unexplained expenditure cannot be brought to tax, according to the Tribunal. If the unaccounted expenditure so incurred was from the ‘on money’ received by the assessee, then, the question of making any addition under Section 69C does not arise because the source of the expenditure is duly explained. It is only the ‘on money’ which can be considered for the purpose of taxation. That is what the Tribunal therefore concluded and once the ‘on money’ is considered as revenue receipt, then any expenditure out of such money cannot be treated as unexplained expenditure, for that would amount to double addition in respect of the same amount

COURT:
CORAM: ,
SECTION(S): , , ,
GENRE:
CATCH WORDS: ,
COUNSEL:
DATE: July 14, 2017 (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: July 20, 2017 (Date of publication)
AY: 2003-04
FILE: Click here to view full post with file download link
CITATION:
S. 292C: An addition cannot be made on the basis of a handwritten loose paper which does not indicate if it pertains to the assessee and if AO has not brought on record any forensic evidence to prove the handwriting of the assessee. An addition cannot be made on the basis of suspicion and guesswork and without bringing corroborative material on record

The ITAT in the impugned order noted that the said document “does not indicate if it pertains to the assessee nor the address and location of the property is mentioned therein nor such property has been located by the AO during the assessment proceedings. The AO has also not brought on record any forensic evidence to prove the handwriting of the loose paper relied upon by him to make the addition, which is exclusively made on the basis of suspicion and guesswork. Even no corroborative material has brought on record by the AO to substantiate the addition nor the CIT(A) has called for any remand report seeking corroborative evidence, if any.” In the considered view of the Court, the addition of Rs. 49 lakhs to the returned income of the Assessee was based on surmises and conjectures and that too on the basis of a single document without making any further enquiry. No attempt was made by the AO to find out if in fact it constituted the construction expenses of any project of the aforementioned company of which the Assessee was a director

COURT:
CORAM: ,
SECTION(S): , , ,
GENRE:
CATCH WORDS: ,
COUNSEL:
DATE: July 14, 2017 (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: July 20, 2017 (Date of publication)
AY: 2004-05
FILE: Click here to view full post with file download link
CITATION:
S. 292C: Addition cannot be made on the basis of a document which is silent as to the payer and payee of the amount in question and does it disclose that the payment was made by cheque or cash nor it is proved that the document is in the handwriting of assessee or at least bears his signatures

The ITAT in the impugned order noted that the document was “silent as to the payer and payee of the amount in question nor does it disclose that the payment was made by cheque or cash nor it is proved that the document is in the handwriting of assessee or at least bears his signatures.” In the considered view of the Court, the addition of Rs.80,50,000 merely on the basis of a single document without making any further enquiry was not justified. No attempt was made by the AO to find out if in fact it constituted estimates relating the construction of project of Omaxe Ltd