Failure to establish delivery of goods is sufficient cause to declare the supply as bogus

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
“H” BENCH, MUMBAI

BEFORE HON’BLE SHRI MAHAVIR SINGH, VP AND
HON’BLE SHRI MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL, AM
(Hearing Through Video Conferencing Mode)

I.T.A. No.7287/Mum/2019
Assessment Year: 2011-12)

DCIT-15(3)(2)
R.No.451, 4t h Floor
Aaykar Bhawan, M.K.Road
Mumbai – 400 020
Appellant) 

Vs.

M/s Sonak Engineering Pvt. Ltd.
R-371, TTC Industrial Area
Thane Belapur Rabale
Navi Mumbai – 400 701
PAN/GIR No. AAGCS-0120-A
Respondent)

Assessee by : None
Revenue by : Shri Gurbinder Singh-Ld. DR

Date of Hearing : 22/04/2021
Date of Pronouncement : 03/05/2021

O R D E R

Manoj Kumar Aggarwal (Accountant Member)

1. Aforesaid appeal by revenue for Assessment year [AY in short] 2011-12 contest the order of Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-24, Mumbai [in short CIT(A) ] which has provided certain relief to the assessee on account of alleged bogus purchases.

2. Though none appeared for assessee, however, material on record was sufficient for disposal of the appeal. The Ld. DR pleaded for restoration of assessment framed by Ld. AO.

3.1 The material facts are that the assessee being resident corporate assessee stated to be engaged in manufacturing of engineering goods was assessed for the year under consideration u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 147 on 30/01/2016. The original return filed by the assessee was processed u/s 143(1). However, pursuant to receipt of certain information from DGIT (Inv.) / Sales Tax Department, Mumbai, it transpired that the assessee made alleged bogus purchases of Rs.15.85 Lacs from three entities as detailed in the assessment order. Accordingly, the case was reopened as per due process of law and the assessee was required to file requisite details to substantiate the purchases.

3.2 In support of purchases, the assessee furnished ledger accounts, invoices, details of goods manufactured and sold along with excise record. It was submitted that the goods were sold to reputed companies. However, Ld. AO opined that the assessee failed to establish delivery of goods and also failed to file the confirmation of the suppliers. In the alternative, the assessee offered 10% estimated additions against these purchases. However, not convinced, the aforesaid purchases were treated as bogus purchases and added to the income of the assessee.

4. Upon further appeal, Ld. CIT(A), after considering factual matrix and relying upon the decision of Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in the case of CIT V/s Simit P.Sheth (356 ITR 451), estimated additions of 12.5% against these purchases. Aggrieved, the revenue is in further appeal before us.

5. Going by the factual matrix as enumerated in the orders of lower authorities, we find that the issue has rightly been clinched in proper perspective by Ld. CIT(A). The Sales Turnover was not in doubt and the assessee was in possession of primary purchase documents. The payment to the supplier was through banking channels. There could be no sale without actual purchase of material keeping in view the assessee’s nature of business. The facts of the case made it a fit case to estimate the profit element embedded in these transactions. Therefore, concurring with findings of Ld. CIT(A) in the impugned order, we dismiss the appeal.

6. The appeal stands dismissed.

Order pronounced on 3rd May, 2021.

Sd/-                                     Sd/-
 (Mahavir Singh)               (Manoj Kumar Aggarwal)
 Vice President                  Accountant Member

Mumbai; Dated : 03/05/2021
Sr.PS, Jaisy Varghese

Copy of the Order forwarded to :
1.The Appellant
2.The Respondent
3.The CIT(A)
4.CIT– concerned
5. DR, ITAT, Mumbai
6.Guard File

 BY ORDER,

(Dy./Asstt.Registrar)
ITAT, Mumbai.