| COURT: | ITAT Mumbai |
| CORAM: | Rajendra (AM), Ram Lal Negi (JM) |
| SECTION(S): | 69C |
| GENRE: | Domestic Tax |
| CATCH WORDS: | Bogus purchases, Bogus Sales |
| COUNSEL: | V Justin |
| 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
Recent Comments