M/s. Shree Minal Oil & Agro Ind.Pvt. Ltd.,, Ahmedabad v. The ACIT., Cent.Circle-1(1),, Ahmedabad

ITSSA 100/AHD/2005 | misc
Pronouncement Date: 16-04-2010 | Result: Dismissed

Appeal Details

RSA Number 10020516 RSA 2005
Assessee PAN AADCS0718D
Bench Ahmedabad
Appeal Number ITSSA 100/AHD/2005
Duration Of Justice 5 year(s) 10 day(s)
Appellant M/s. Shree Minal Oil & Agro Ind.Pvt. Ltd.,, Ahmedabad
Respondent The ACIT., Cent.Circle-1(1),, Ahmedabad
Appeal Type Income Tax (Search & Seizure) Appeal
Pronouncement Date 16-04-2010
Appeal Filed By Assessee
Order Result Dismissed
Bench Allotted A
Tribunal Order Date 16-04-2010
Date Of Final Hearing 08-04-2010
Next Hearing Date 08-04-2010
Assessment Year misc
Appeal Filed On 05-04-2005
Judgment Text
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL : A BENCH : AHMEDABAD (BEFORE HONBLE SHRI T.K. SHARMA J.M. & HONBLE SH RI D.C. AGRAWAL A.M.) I.T.(S.S.)A. NO. 97/AHD./2005 ASSESSMENT YEAR : BLOCK PERIOD 1.4.1995 TO 27.09.20 01 ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX -VS.- SH REE MINAL OIL & AGRO INDUSTRIES P. LTD. CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1) AHMEDABAD AHMEDABAD (PAN : AADCS 0718 D) (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) & I.T.(S.S.)A. NO. 100/AHD./2005 ASSESSMENT YEAR : BLOCK PERIOD 1.4.1995 TO 27.09.20 01 OFFICIAL LIQUIDATOR OF GUJARAT HIGH COURT FOR -VS.- ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX SHREE MINAL OIL & AGRO INDUSTRIES P. LTD. CENTRAL CIRCLE -1(1) AHMEDABAD AHMEDABAD (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) ASSESSEE BY : N O N E DEPARTMENT BY : SHRI RAJEEV AGARWAL CIT D.R. O R D E R PER SHRI T.K. SHARMA JUDICIAL MEMBER : THIS CROSS APPEAL IS AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 20.01 .2005 OF LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(APPEALS)-XI AHMEDABAD FOR THE BLOCK ASS ESSMENT PERIOD 1.4.1995 TO 27.09.2001. 2. IN THIS CASE NOTICE FIXING THE DATE OF HEARING FOR TODAY I.E. 08.04.2010 THROUGH DEPARTMENT WAS SENT TO THE ASSESSEE THROUGH OFFICIA L LIQUIDATOR OF GUJARAT HIGH COURT. THE EVIDENCE OF SERVICE OF NOTICE IS PLACED ON RECORD. DESPITE THE SERVICE OF NOTICE FIXING THE DATE OF HEARING TODAY I.E. 08.04.2010 NEITHER ANYBODY APP EARED FROM THE SIDE OF ASSESSEE NOR APPLICATION FOR ADJOURNMENT IS RECEIVED. WE THEREF ORE PROCEED TO DECIDE BOTH THE APPEALS ON THE BASIS OF SUBMISSIONS MADE BY THE LD. DEPARTMENTAL R EPRESENTATIVE AND MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. 3. VARIOUS GROUNDS RAISED BY THE REVENUE IN ITS APP EAL BEING IT(SS)A. NO. 97/AHD/2005 ARE AS UNDER :- 2 IT(SS)A NOS. 97 & 100/AH D/2005 (1) THE CIT(A.) HAS ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS IN DI RECTING TO RESTRICT THE ADDITION OF RS.14 12 06 902/- MADE ON ACCOUNT OF BO GUS PURCHASES TO RS.3 53 01 726/-. (2) THE CIT(A.) HAS ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS IN DI RECTING TO RESTRICT THE ADDITION OF RS.33 39 36 399/- MADE ON ACCOUNT OF BO GUS PURCHASES TO RS.8 34 84 100/-. (3) THE CIT(A.) HAS ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS IN DI RECTING TO RESTRICT THE ADDITION OF RS.17 57 69 851/- MADE ON ACCOUNT OF BO GUS PURCHASES TO RS.4 39 42 463/-. (4) ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CA SE AND IN LAW THE CIT(A.) OUGHT TO HAVE UPHELD THE ORDER OF THE A.O. (5) IT IS THEREFORE PRAYED THAT THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A.) BE SET ASIDE AND THAT OF THE A.O. BE RESTORED TO THE ABOVE EXTENT. 4. THE GROUND RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE IN ITS APPEAL BEING IT(SS)A. NO. 100/AHD/2005 READS AS UNDER :- THE LD. CIT(A.) ERRED IN LAW AND FACTS TO RESTRICT /CONFIRM THE ADDITION AS UNDER :- (A) RS.65 09 13 152/- @ 25% UNDER THE HEAD BOGUS PURCHA SES (B) RS. 40 01 000/- @ 100% UNDER THE HEAD UNEXPLAIN ED EXPENSES ________________ RS.65 49 14 152/- ____________________ 5. ALONGWITH THE APPEAL-MEMO THE ASSESSEE MADE THE FOLLOWING SUBMISSIONS :- HON'BLE CIT(A.) HAS ERRED IN LAW AND FACTS WHILE C ONFIRMING THE VARIOUS ADDITIONS AS UNDER :- RUPEES NATURE OF ADDITION ADDITION REST RICTED TO 14 12 06 902 BOGUS PURCHASE @ 25% OF ADDITION 33 39 36 399 BOGUS PURCHASE @ 25% OF ADDITION 17 57 69 581 BOGUS PARTY REPORTED BY SALES TAX DEPARTMENT @ 25% OF ADDITION 40 01 000 UNEXPLAINED EXPENSES @ 100% 2. THE ORDER PASSED BY HON'BLE CIT(A.) AND LEARNED A.O. U/S. 158BC R.W.S. 144 OF THE ACT IS BASICALLY AGAINST THE FACTS AND LAW OF T HE CASE IN AS MUCH AS THAT THE ORDER IS PASSED ON THE BACK OF THE APPELLANT THE PAPER BOOK CONTAINING MORE THAN 700 PAGES IN 11 LEVER FILES WERE SUBMITTED TO LEARNED A.O HOWEVER UNDER THE INSTRUCTIONS OF HON. C1T (A) SUGGESTED TO FILE ONLY SAMPLE OF PAPERS IN RES PECT OF ONLY ONE PARTY SO THAT THE PAPER BOOK MAY NOT BE BULKY AND UNMANAGEABLE TO HANDLE TH EREFORE FINALLY PAPER BOOK 3 IT(SS)A NOS. 97 & 100/AH D/2005 CONTAINING 283 PAPERS WAS FILED. IT IS SURPRISING T O FIND THAT NOT A SINGLE OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD WAS GIVEN TO THE APPELLANT AND THE ORDE R CONFIRMING HUGE ADDITION @ 25% OF RS.65 49 14 152/- IS CONFIRMED. THE ORDER IS PASSED MECHANICALLY AND WITHOUT APPLICATION OF MIND MERELY RELYING ON THE DECISION OF HONORABLE ITAT IN CASE OF N.K. INDUSTRIES LTD.. N.K. PROTEINS LTD. AND VIJAY PROTEINS LTD. IT MAY P LEASE BE APPRECIATED THAT CONFIRMATION OF SUCH HUGE ADDITION OF MORE THAN RS 15 CRORES WIT HOUT GIVING A SINGLE OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD THE PREDESIGNED MIND OF THE LEARNED A.O . HONORABLE CIT{A) HAS GROSSLY FAILED TO EVALUATE FORMIDABLE SUBMISSIONS MADE BY T HE APPELLANT IN VIEW OF THE SHORTAGE OF TIME AS THE ORDER WAS TIME BARRED AND IS PASSED IN THE FAG END OF T.B. MONTH ULTIMATELY PASSING THE ORDER JUST RELYING ON THE ITAT DECISION IN THE CASE OF NKIL AND NKPL RESTRICTING THE ADDITION TO 25% ON THE SAME RATIO O F JUDGMENT. 3. ADDITION OF RS.14 12 06 902/- IT IS SUBMITTED THAT THE SAID PURCHASES OF RS. 14 1 2 CRORES WERE MADE FROM FIVE PARTIES. THE DETAILS OF ALL THE RELEVANT EVIDENCE OF STATEMENT O F ACCOUNT OF THOSE PARTIES COPY OF BILLS COPY OF L/R COPY OF WEIGH BRIDE SLIP COPY OF BANK STATEMENTS SHOWING PARTICULARS OF PAYMENTS BY CHEQUE ETC. WERE FILED BEFORE HONORABLE CIT(A) AND A.O. THESE PERRENIAL EVIDENCES HAVE BEEN TOTALLY IGNORED BY HONORABLE CI T(A) AND A.O. IT WAS ALSO STRONGLY BROUGHT OUT THAT THE MANUFACTURING PLANT AND THE PR ODUCTS ARE DIFFERENT FROM NKPL AND NKIL WITH THAT OF THE APPELLANT COMPANY WHICH IS RE CITED IN PARA 5.1.2 OF THE APPELLANT ORDER NO HEEDBACK IS PAID BY HONORABLE C1T(A) IN HI S ORDER ON THESE SUBMISSIONS IT IS SUBMITTED THAT THESE ARGUMENTS ARE NOT COMBAT ED BY LEARNED A.O. IN HIS REMAND REPORT AT ANY STAGE. THE HONORABLE C1T(A) IN PARA 5.4 HAS BRUSHED ASIDE PERENNIAL ARGUMENTS AND COGENT EVIDENCES PRODUCED BEFORE HIM AND HAS NOT MADE A SI NGLE LINE REFERENCE TO SHOW AS TO HOW THOSE EVIDENCES ARE NOT ACCEPTABLE. MERELY RELYING ON THE JUDGMENT OF NKIL AND NKPL AND ALSO VIJAY PROTEINS LTD. PASSED THE MECHANICAL ORDE R PURELY WITHOUT APPLICATION OF MIND CONFIRMING ADDITION AT 25% NEEDS TO BE QUASHED. 4. ADDITION OF RS.33 39 36 399/- ON ACCOUNT OF BOG US PURCHASES : THIS ADDITION WAS ORIGINALLY MADE ON THE GROUND THA T THESE PURCHASES WERE MADE FROM 17 PARTIES WHICH WERE THE SAME BOGUS PARTIES DEALING W ITH NKIL AND NKPL AND ALSO THE RUBBER STAMPS OF THOSE PARTIES WERE FOUND FROM THE PREMISES OF THE APPELLANT COMPANY AT THE TIME OF SEARCH. THE FIRST PART OF THE SAID FACTS RE GARDING ALLEGED 17 PARTIES WERE NOT BOGUS AND WERE ALSO NOT DEALING WITH NKIL OR NKPL AND THE REFORE THE WHOLE ADDITION WAS BASED ON ERRONEOUS PREMISES BEING PAIL OF THE FACT IS ACC EPTED BY THE LEARNED A.O. IN HIS REMAND REPORT AS HE HAS REPLIED ONLY ONE ASPECT OF RUBBER STAMP AND DID'T TOUCH UPON THE ASPECT OF BOGUS PARTIES ARGUMENT. MERELY BECAUSE THE RUBBER S TAMPS WERE FOUND DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH DOES NOT IPSOFACTO PROVE THAT THESE PARTIES WERE BOGUS. IT IS FOR THE PURPOSE OF COMPLIANCE WITH LEGAL REQUIREMENTS ON MANY PAPERS R EPEATEDLY THE EMPLOYEES OF THOSE PARTIES COME ALONGWITH THE RUBBER STAMP AND MAY FOR GET TO TAKE HACK OR EVEN PURPOSEFULLY KEEP ONE PIECE OF RUBBER STAMP WITH THE COMPANY SO THAT IN CASE OF EMERGENCY THE SAME CAN BE USED BY THEM. THEREFORE THE CONFIRMATION OF ADDITION IS MADE WITHOUT COMPARING AND ESTABLISHING THAT THESE 17 PARTIES WERE THE SAME PE RSONS DEALING WITH NKIL AND NKPL. AND THEREFORE DECISION OF THE HONORABLE CIT (A) TO REST RICT ADDITION AT 25% BASED ON THE ORDER OF ITAT IN THE CASE OF NKIL AND NKPL WITHOUT APPLIC ATION OF MIND DESERVES TO BE QUASHED. 4 IT(SS)A NOS. 97 & 100/AH D/2005 5. ADDITION OF RS. 17 57 69 851/- UNDER THE HEAD BOGUS PARTIES REPORTED BY SALES TAX DEPARTMENT THE PURCHASES MADE FROM THREE PATTIES REFERRING TO ABOVE SUM IS BASED ON THE ARGUMENT THAT THESE THREE PARTIES WERE TREATED AS BOGUS PARTIES B Y THE SALES TAX DEPARTMENT. THE COMPANY HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH SALES TAX DEPARTMENT AS IT B EING 100% EOU UNIT WAS TOTALLY EXEMPT FROM PAYING SALES TAX AND THEREFORE WHETHER PURCHAS E ARE MADE FROM THE PARTIES WHICH ARE REGISTERED WITH SALES TAX DEPARTMENT OR NOT DID NOT MAKE ANY DIFFERENCE TO THE APPELLANT COMPANY. HONORABLE CIT(A) JUST RELYING ON THE CASE OF NKII AND NKPL AGAIN CONFIRMED THE ADDITION RESTRICTING TO 25% BE QUASHED. IT SHOULD BE APPRECIATED THAT IF THERE IS NO BENEFI T TO THE COMPANY FOR PURCHASING GOODS EITHER FROM REGISTERED DEALER OR UN REGISTERED DEAL ER IT SHOULD BE ESTABLISHED AS TO WHAT BENEFIT IS DERIVED BY APPELLANT COMPANY IN PURCHASI NG GOODS FROM ALLEGED BOGUS PARTIES. IT SHOULD ALSO BE ESTABLISHED THAT IF IT IS THE CASE O F BOGUS PURCHASE THERE WAS ALSO A CASE OF BOGUS SALE OR COLLECTING THE CONSIDERATION BACK BY THE APPELLANT COMPANY FOR THE ALLEGED BOGUS PURCHASES. 6. ADDITION OF RS.40 01 000/- FOR UNEXPLAINED EXPE NSES APPELLANT BEGS TO RELY ON THE SUBMISSIONS MADE BEFO RE THE HON CIT (A). 7. GENERAL SUBMISSION A. IT IS ALSO SUBMITTED THAT WHEN THE CASE OF BOGUS PURCHASES IS CONSIDERED IT MEANS THAT BOGUS PURCHASES ARE DEBITED IN BOOKS TO SUPPRE SS THE TAXABLE PROFIT. AS THE APPELLANT COMPANY IS 100% EXPORT ORIENTED UNIT COMPANY ENTIR E PROFIT BEING EXEMPT THERE WAS NO MOTIVE FOR BOGUS PURCHASES B. IF BOGUS PURCHASES ARE DEBITED IN BOOKS N ORMALLY CASH IS COLLECTED BY THE PERSON TAKING BOGUS BILLS. EXTENSIVE SEARCH WAS MADE AT TH E COMPANIES CORPORATE PREMISES FACTORY PREMISES AND AT THE RESIDENCES OF ALL DIRECTORS. NO T A SINGLE EVIDENCE NEITHER LOOSE PAPER OF SUCH NATURE FOR CASH BEING COLLECTED OR EVEN INDICA TING THAT SUCH TRANSACTION OF BOGUS PURCHASES HAD TAKEN PLACE IS FOUND BY THE DEPARTMEN T. THEREFORE THE CASE OF BOGUS PARTIES IS BASED ON SURMISES AND CONJECTURES IF ONE PARTY IS P ROVED TO BE BOGUS PARTY IN ONE CASE DOES NOT NECESSARILY PROVE THAT SUCH BOGUS BILLS ARE ISS UED BY SUCH PARTIES TO ONE AND ALL ISSUE OF BOGUS BILLS MIGHT HAVE BEEN DONE WITH LIMITED PARTI ES WHILE SUCH PARTY MIGHT BE DOING GENUINE BUSINESS WITH OTHER PARTIES. THEREFORE IT I S AGAINST THE CANNONS OF EQUITY AND JUSTICE TO MAKE SUCH RIDICULOUS ASSUMPTION UNLESS OTHERWISE PROVED BY COGENT EVIDENCES AVAILABLE ON RECORD. THEREFORE THE CASE OF DEPT FAILS ON THI S GROUND AS ADDITION IS CONFIRMED MECHANICALLY @ 25% RELYING ON THE CASE OF NKIL AND NKPL WITHOUT CORRELATING THE COMMON FACTS AND EVIDENCES AVAILABLE M THE CASE OF APPELLANT COMPANY WITH THAT OF NKIL AND NKPL. C. IT IS ALSO FORMIDABLY SUBMITTED THAT THE APPELLANT COMPANY HAS EXPORTED ENTIRE PRODUCTION. IF BOGUS PURCHASES ARE MADE. THEN IT SH OULD BE ESTABLISHED BY THE DEPARTMENT WHETHER THE EXPORT WAS ALSO BOGUS. IF THE ANSWER IS NEGATIVE THE ADDITION FAILS AS PURCHASES WERE BACKED BY THE DELIVERY OF GOODS TAKEN BY THE A PPELLANT COMPANY. IT IS ALSO SUBMITTED STRONGLY THAT FOR ALL PURCHASES PAYMENTS ARE MADE BY ACCOUNT PAYEE CHEQUES THEN IT SHOULD ALSO BE ESTABLISHED AS TO HOW SAID MONEY HAD CAME B ACK TO THE APPELLANT COMPANY. NOT A SINGLE EXERCISE IN THIS DIRECTION IS MADE AND ADDIT ION IS CONFIRMED ON SURMISES AND CONJECTURES AND HENCE FAILS. 5 IT(SS)A NOS. 97 & 100/AH D/2005 D. WE HAVE SELECTED CERTAIN SAMPLES OF TRANS ACTIONS TO PROVE THAT ALL PURCHASES ARE BACKED BY DELIVERY OF GOODS AND PAYMENT IS MADE BY ACCOUNT PAYEE SLIP WEIGHBRIDGE SLIPS ETC. ARE ALSO PRODUCED. THESE ARE GIVEN IN PAPER BO OK WHICH WAS FILED BEFORE HON'BLE CIT(A) AND WAS SENT TO LEARNED A O. THE SAID PAPER BOOK IS FILED HEREWITH FOR KIND PERUSAL OF THE HON. BENCH. 6. ON BEHALF OF REVENUE SHRI RAJEEV AGARWAL CIT D.R. APPEARED AND CONTENDED THAT IN THE IMPUGNED ORDER THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INC OME TAX(APPEALS) FOLLOWING THE DECISION OF N.K. PROTEINS RESTRICTED THE TOTAL ADDITION OF B OGUS PURCHASES TO 25%. THE LD. D.R. FAIRLY ADMITTED THAT THE VIEW TAKEN BY THE ITAT IN THE CAS E OF N.K. PROTEINS IN IS FURTHER SUPPORTED BY ITAT IN THE CASE OF VIJAY PROTEINS REPORTED IN 58 I TR 428 AS WELL. HOWEVER HE SUBMITTED THAT INSTEAD OF RESTRICTING THE ADDITION TO 25% THE TRI BUNAL SHOULD HAVE CONFIRMED THE ENTIRE ADDITIONS. 7. WITH REGARD TO THE GROUNDS RAISED BY THE ASSESSE E IN ITS APPEAL THE LD. D.R. POINTED OUT THAT THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(APPEALS ) CONFIRMED THE ADDITION OF RS.40 01 000/- @ 100% UNDER THE HEAD UNEXPLAINED E XPENSES. AFTER CAREFULLY GOING THROUGH THE REASONING GIVEN BY THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(APPEALS) NO INTERFERENCE IS CALLED FOR BECAUSE THE RELEVANT DOCUMENTS WERE SEIZ ED BY THE A.O. NO SATISFACTORY EXPLANATION WAS FURNISHED EITHER BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER O R BEFORE THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(APPEALS). THEREFORE THE ORDER OF CT(A) CONFIRMING THE ADDITION OF RS.40 01 000/- BE UPHELD. 8. AFTER HEARING THE LD. D.R. AND PERUSING THE MATE RIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD WE ARE CONVINCED THAT IN RESPECT OF BOGUS PURCHASES THE L EARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(APPEALS) IS LEGALLY AND FACTUALLY CORRECT IN FO LLOWING THE DECISION OF VIJAY PROTEINS LTD. VS.- ACIT [58 ITD 428] AND RESTRICTING THE ADDITION TO 25%. THE REASONING GIVEN BY THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(APPEALS) IS CONTAINED IN PARA 6.2 ON PAGE 15 OF THE IMPUGNED ORDER WHICH READS AS UNDER :- 6.2. I HAVE CONSIDERED THE FACTS OF THE CASE AND S UBMISSIONS OF THE A.R. OF THE APPELLANT CAREFULLY. I HAVE ALSO GONE T HROUGH THE OBSERVATIONS OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN THE ASSESS MENT ORDER AND THEN IN THE REMAND REPORT. THE ISSUE HAS BEEN DISCUSSED IN DETAIL WHILE DEALING WITH PREVIOUS GROUND OF APPEAL AND IT IS FO UND THAT THE 6 IT(SS)A NOS. 97 & 100/AH D/2005 APPELLANT HAS NOT BEEN ABLE TO REBUT THE FINDINGS G IVEN BY THE A.O.. AT PARA 8.2 OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER (FROM PAGE 21 TO 2 6) THE A.O. HAS DISCUSSED THE ISSUE IN DETAIL AND REFERRED TO VARIO US EVIDENCES/ STATEMENTS INCLUDING THE STATEMENT OF SHRI PRAMOD K. PATEL RECORDED ON 5.10.2001. HE HAS REFERRED TO 17 SUCH BOGUS PART IES FROM WHOM THE APPELLANT HAD SHOWN PURCHASES. THE APPELLANT HAS NO T BEEN ABLE TO SUBSTANTIATE THE SAME. FURTHER IT COULD NOT EXPLAI N WHY THE STAMPS OF THESE SO CALLED SUPPLIERS WERE FOUND FROM THE APPEL LANTS PREMISES AT THE TIME OF THE SEARCH. THEREFORE I AGREE WITH THE FINDINGS OF THE A.O. THAT THESE SUPPLIERS ARE BOGUS. HOWEVER WITH REGAR D TO QUANTUM OF ADDITION I RELY THE HON'BLE ITAT DECISIONS IN THE CASE OF VIJAY PROTEINS (SUPRA) AND N.K. INDUSTRIES LTD. AND N.K. PROTEINS LTD. HAVING CONSIDERED THE FACTS OF THE CASE AND RESPECTFULLY F OLLOWING DECISION OF THE HON'BLE ITAT REFERRED TO ABOVE THE ADDITION M ADE BY THE A.O. IS RESTRICTED TO 25% OF THE ADDITION BY THE A.O. THE A .O. IS DIRECTED ACCORDINGLY. 9. ITAT AHMEDABAD BENCH IN THE CASE OF VIJAY PROTE INS LTD. (SUPRA) HELD AS UNDER :- IT IS WELL KNOWN THAT IF PURCHASES ARE MADE FROM O PEN MARKET WITHOUT INSISTING FOR THE GENUINE BILLS THE SUPPLIERS MAYB E WILLING TO SELL THOSE PRODUCTS AT A MUCH LOWER RATE AS COMPARED TO THE RA TE AT WHICH THEY MAY CHARGE IN CASE THE DEALER HAS TO GIVE A GENUINE SALE INVOICE THE RESPECT OF THAT SALE AND SUPPLY THE GOODS. THERE MA Y BE A SAVING ON ACCOUNT OF SALES TAX AND OTHER TAXES AND DUTIES WHI CH MAY BE LEVIABLE IN RESPECT O MANUFACTURE OF SALE OF GOODS IN QUESTI ON. THE SUPPLIERS OR THE MANUFACTURERS MAKE A SUBSTANTIAL SAVING IN THE INCOME TAX IN RESPECT OF INCOME FROM SALE OF UNACCOUNTED GOODS PR ODUCED AND SOLE BY THEM. THIS MAY ALSO BE ONE OF THE FACTORS DUE TO WHICH THE SELLER MAY BE WILLING TO CHARGE LOWER RATES FOR UNACCOUNTE D GOOD AS COMPARED TO ACCOUNTED GOODS. KEEPING ALL THESE FACT ORS IN MIND 25% OF THE PURCHASE PRICE ACCOUNTED FOR IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS THROUGH SUCH FICTITIOUS INVOICES IN THE NAME OF 33 BOGUS PA RTIES SHOULD BE DISALLOWED OUT OF THE AMOUNT OF PURCHASE SHOWN TO H AVE BEEN MADE FROM 33 BOGUS SUPPLIERS. 10. THE FACTS OF THE PRESENT CASE ARE ALMOST IDENTI CAL WITH THE FACTS OF VIJAY PROTEINS LTD. (SUPRA). WE ARE THEREFORE OF THE VIEW THAT THE LE ARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(APPEALS) IS LEGALLY AND FACTUALLY CORRECT IN FOLLOWING THE D ECISION OF VIJAY PROTEINS LTD. (SUPRA) AND RESTRICTING THE DISALLOWANCE OF BOGUS PURCHASES TO THE EXTENT OF 25%. THEREFORE NO INTERFERENCE IS CALLED FOR. 7 IT(SS)A NOS. 97 & 100/AH D/2005 11. IN THE IMPUGNED ORDER THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(APPEALS) CONFIRMED THE ADDITION OF RS.40 01 000/- MADE N RESPECT OF UN EXPLAINED EXPENSES BECAUSE ACCORDING TO ASSESSING OFFICER AS PER SEIZED MATERIAL I.E. ANNEX URE A-5 A-17 A-19 AND A-1/21THERE WERE NOTINGS/ NARRATION ABOUT CASH PAYMENTS/ TRANSACTION S. BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER THERE WAS NO COMPLIANCE FROM THE ASSESSEE/ OFFICIAL LIQUIDATOR THE ASSESSING OFFICER TREATED THE SAME AS UNDISCLOSED INCOME. DURING THE APPELLATE PROCEEDING S BEFORE THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(APPEALS) THE LD. COUNSEL OF THE ASSESSE E ASKED FOR PHOTOCOPIES OF THOSE DOCUMENTS WHICH WERE MADE AVAILABLE BUT DESPITE THAT NO EXPLA NATION WAS FURNISHED BEFORE THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(APPEALS). IN THESE CIRCU MSTANCES WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(APPEALS) WAS HAV ING NO OPTION BUT TO CONFIRM THE ADDITION OF RS.40 01 000/- MADE BY THE ASSESSING OF FICER. WE THEREFORE DECLINE TO INTERFERE. 12. IN THE RESULT THE APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE AS WELL AS THE APPEAL BY THE ASSESSEE BOTH ARE DISMISSED. THE ORDER WAS PRONOUNCED IN THE COURT ON 16.04.2010 . SD/- SD/- (D.C. AGRAWAL) (T.K. SHARMA ) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER DATED : 16/ 04 /2010 COPY OF THE ORDER IS FORWARDED TO : 1) THE ASSESSEE (2) THE DEPARTMENT. 3) CIT(A) CONCERNED (4) CIT CONCERNED (5) D.R. ITAT AHMEDABAD. TRUE COPY BY ORDER DEPUTY REGISTRAR ITAT AHMEDABAD LAHA/SR.P.S.