News shortcuts: From the Courts | Top Headlines | VAT (Value Added Tax) | Placements & Empanelment | Various Acts & Rules | Latest Circulars | New Forms | Forex | Auditing | Direct Tax | Customs and Excise | Professional Updates | Corporate Law | Markets | Students | General | Mergers and Acquisitions | Continuing Prof. Edu. | Budget Extravaganza | Transfer Pricing | GST - Goods and Services Tax | PPE Safety Kit SITRA Approved | PPE Safety Kit
From the Courts »
 Rajeev Verma 2/5, Gupta Market, Lajpat Nagar-4, New Delhi Vs. ACIT Circle-54(1), 15th Floor, Civic Centre, J.L. Nehru Marg, New Delhi
 ACIT, Circle-12(1), O/o. Pr. CIT(4), New Delhi Vs. Indiabulls Ventures Ltd, (formerly known as M/s. Indiabulls Securities Ltd), M-62 & 63, First Floor, Connaught Place, New Delhi
 Tata Education and Development Trust vs. ACIT (ITAT Mumbai)
 Exotica Housing & Infrastructure Company Pvt. Ltd vs. ITO (ITAT Delhi)
 CBIC issues Internal Instruction on TRAN-1 writ petition filed in various High Courts
 M/s. Divya Creations, Plot No.97, NSEZ, Noida. Uttar Pradesh. Vs. The ACIT, Circle-1, Noida. Uttar Pradesh.
 M/s. J. S. & M. F. Builders vs. A. K. Chauhan (Bombay High Court)
 PCIT vs. Hybrid Financial Services Ltd (Bombay High Court)
 Michelin India Pvt. Ltd., (Formerly known as Michelin India Tyres Pvt.Ltd.) 3rd Floor, Orchid Business Park, Sector-48, Sohna Road, Gurgaon Vs. The JCIT (OSD), Circle-6(1), New Delhi.
 SMC Investments Advisors Ltd., 11/5-B, 3rd Floor, Pusa Road, New Delhi Vs. SMC Investments Advisors Ltd., 11/5-B, 3rd Floor, Pusa Road, New Delhi
 Muradul Haque, D-94 B, Hastsal Vihar, Uttam Nagar, New Delhi Vs. Income Tax Officer Ward- 44 (1) New Delhi

The Pr. Commissioner Of Income Tax -7 vs. Padmini Vna Mechatronics Pvt. Ltd.
February, 26th 2019
%                           Date of Decision : 11th February, 2019

+                 ITA No.140/2019 & CM No.6355/2019

                     Through : Mr. Ruchir Bhatia, Sr. Standing


                    Through : None.



1.     The Revenue in this appeal under Section 260A is aggrieved by
the ITAT's order, which had affirmed the Appellate Commissioner's
decision, setting aside a reassessment order.
2.     The substantial question of law raised is that the lower appellate
authorities have returned unreasonable and perverse findings on
merits. For Assessments Year 2008-09, reassessment notices were
issued to the assessee, on the ground that the latter had made bogus
purchases. The assessee manufactured various kinds of automobile
parts and electronic parts. The precise complaint was that the two
concerns, M/s Om Industrial Corporation (OIC) and M/s Techno
Enterprises were shown as sellers of raw material in respect of the

ITA No.140/2019                                                 Page 1 of 5
substantial quantities.   The Revenue alleged that the purchases
reflected from these sources were bogus. The Revenue relied upon the
survey proceedings under Section 133 as well as the statements made
under Section 133A.       It further relied upon the statement made
allegedly by bogus entry providers, who stated that the amounts
claimed by the asessee as expenditure were of fictitious and bogus
nature. The AO acted upon these and disallowed the expenditure to
the tune of 60,61,4801.
3.     Upon appeal the CIT(A) considered the explanation and also
various documentary evidence on record. These included the forms
evidencing deposit of VAT dues; the D-3 Transit/Transport challan,
stock register maintained at the asseessee's factory premises, the
relevant central excise gate passes/records of purchases in the
statutory register RG-1 etc.   After recording these submissions, the
CIT(A) held that the issues in the relevant assessment year were
squarely covered by his orders for A.Y. 2006-07 and 2007-08. In
those orders, the CIT(A) was of the opinion that even though initiation
of re-assessment was justified, the addition made in the reassessment
proceedings, was not justified.    The CIT(A)'s reasoning in those
orders was as follows:
"The AO has also made a reference to the bank Accounts of these concerns showing cash withdrawal for returning the money to the beneficiaries. In view of these broad findings, the AO reached to the conclusion that the purchases made from these parties are not genuine. The AO however, could not point out any discrepancy in the documents and records, including stock register produced before him. In this case, I find that all the, ITA No.140/2019 Page 2 of 5 purchases are evidences by purchase invoices. All the 3 parties are registered with VAT and having TIN nos. as mentioned in the invoices. All the 3 parties are at Faridabad / Haryana. The purchases are made by the appellant at it's Gurgaon factory. For every sale from Faridabad / Haryana to Gurgaon, the seller party has to obtain advance D - 3 Vat Form from Faridabad VAT Deptt. This form is to be accompanied with the purchase invoice during transportation of goods from the seller to the buyer. The purchase invoice, D - 3 VAT form and the physical goods transported are inter - sea matched by the Vat Deptt. at the border. The VAT Deptt. after verification, put it's seal on the D - 3 form In this case, for all the 3 parties all such documents have been produced by the appellant. It un- doubtedly shows the movement of goods from Haryana to Gurgaon. On receipt of goods, it receipt is entered in the gate entry register by the Security guard on the gate who after physical verification of the goods put a seal on the back of the invoice. This seal mentions the particulars of gate entry no., date and initial of security guard. Then, the goods are received in store where it's receipts are entered in the stock register. Then the movement of goods from the stores to production Deptt. is also recorded in the Stock Register. The copies of relevant stock records showing this movement has also been produced before AO wherein no discrepancy has been noticed. The unit is cover under the Excise Act. The production, and it's sale is recorded in the Excise records. All these records were produced and filed before the AO wherein, again no discrepancy has been noticed. All these documents shows the movement of goods from Haryana to Gurgaon factory of the appellant and thereafter issuance for production and ultimately culminating into sales. The Excise records are audited periodically by the Excise Deptt. Purchase also needs to be reported to the VAT Deptt. through VAT returns. The purchases from these parties also stood declared to the VAT Deptt. which after verification, ITA No.140/2019 Page 3 of 5 accepted the same. The appellant also filed a certificate from the Production manager alongwith details of production wise clearance which clearly shows that these items were used and consumed by the Production Deptt. As explained by the appellant, these purchases constitutes the raw material for manufacturing "valves" which is the end product of the appellant which valves are sold to Original Equipment Manufacturing companies like Maruti, Mahindra, Tata etc., etc., wherein this item is being used as a motor part. In this case, complete documentary evidences have been filed before the AO wherein no discrepancy has been pointed out. The payment for purchases had been made through cheques. 4. The Revenue's appeals for those assessment years having been dismissed, it approached this Court in ITA Nos.111/2019 and 112/2019, which have been dismissed by our order dated 04.02.2019 with the following observations : "3. On the basis of the above reasoning, the CIT set aside the final reassessment order which had disallowed the expenditure. The Revenue's appeal before ITAT was unsuccessful. On behalf of the Revenue, it is urged that the findings of the Appellate Commissioner and ITAT cannot be sustained because they did not give any credence to the statements recorded under Section 133A. It is further stated that mere deposit of amounts to D-3 challan, did not signify that the goods were actually purchased or had been consumed as alleged by the assessee. 4. This Court is of the opinion that the assessee did not rely merely upon the deposit of the amount but rather movement of the goods, which is borne out by the VAT authorities' stamp on transit challan i.e. chungi, at the border.
5. Furthermore, other evidence such as the stock register, factory certifying the receipt of the goods as and when they were moved into the premises; clearly recorded in ITA No.140/2019 Page 4 of 5 the statutory central excise registers RG-1 etc., were sufficient proof to show that the purchases were not bogus. Moreover, the CIT(A) re-apprised all the evidence, unlike the AO, who was largely influenced by the so-called credit entry providers. 6. This Court is of the opinion that having regard to the detailed analysis of the CIT(A), with which the ITAT's finding concurred, no question of law arises." 5. The present appeal raises similar grounds and is covered by our order dated 04.02.2019. No substantial question of law arises. The appeal is, therefore, dismissed. S. RAVINDRA BHAT, J PRATEEK JALAN, J FEBRUARY 11, 2019 aj ITA No.140/2019 Page 5 of 5
Home | About Us | Terms and Conditions | Contact Us | PPE Kit SITRA Approved | PPE Safety Kit
Copyright 2020 CAinINDIA All Right Reserved.
Designed and Developed by Ritz Consulting