9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (7) TMI 203X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ded by the Assessing Officer that purchase of Rs. 10040088/- made by the appellant are not verifiable. 2. The Ld CIT(A) is further wrong and has erred in law in upholding rejection of books of accounts of the appellant by the Assessing Officer U/s 145(3) of the IT Act, 1961 and in further confirming trading addition to the extent of Rs. 2510022/- made by the Assessing Officer by upholding disallowance of 25% of above alleged unverifiable purchase. 3. That the Ld. CIT(A) is wrong and has erred in law in confirming addition of Rs. 25100/- to the income of the appellant on account of alleged commission paid on purchases of Rs. 10040088/- referred to in ground No. (1) above. 4. That the Ld. CIT(A) is further wrong and has erred in law in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nd basis of valuation of closing stock. In these circumstances the value of stock and genuineness of the trading results are not subject to verification. On examination of purchases details, it was found that the assessee had shown purchases from bogus entry providers as under: Bill No. Concern name Date Amount (Rs.) 42 M/s Adinath Gems 04/6/2007 4,00,577/- 171 M/s Adinath Gems 3/11/2007 1,07,800/- 208 M/s Adinath Gems 4/12/2007 2,42,200/- 305 M/s Amar Gems 3/4/2007 6,13,362/- 422 M/s Amar Gems 27/8/2007 4,31,138/- 530 M/s Amar Gems 2/1/2008 2,97,594/- 555 M/s Amar Gems 4/2/2008 2,68,412/- 454 M/s Gems Ocean 3/4/2007 9,82,917/- 724 M/s Gems Ocean 3/1/2008 3,23,891/- 763 M/s Gems Oc ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... P (P) Ltd. Vs. CIT 186 CTR 718 (MP) (e) Chuhar Mal Vs. CIT 172 ITR 250 (SC) (f) CIT Vs. Golcha Prop Pvt. Ltd. 227 ITR 391 (Raj) The ld Assessing Officer further observed that from the above case laws and discussion, it is clear that the assessee has failed to prove the genuineness of the purchases made. The primary onus is on the assessee to establish the genuineness of the purchases claimed by it. Since the primary facts are in the knowledge of the assessee it is his duty to provide the correct address or contact modes of the alleged suppliers. Payment of account payee cheque is not sacrosanct. The learned Assessing Officer after considering the assessee's reply and relying upon the decision in the case of Kachwala Gems Vs. JCIT 288 ITR ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... The use of these cars for personal use has already admitted by the assessee by adding the same amount in the total income in computation. But the assessee had not disallowed the proportionate amount of deprecation of Rs. 4,32,552/- and insurance for these car at Rs. 29,184/-. He disallow 1/5 of depreciation on car as well as insurance on car which comes to Rs. 93,347/-, the same is added in the total income of the assessee. 3. Being aggrieved by the order of the learned Assessing Officer, the assessee carried the matter before the learned CIT(A), who had allowed the assessee's appeal partly by observing as under:- "5. As already pointed out the case of the appellant is of manufacturer. Moreover, it has been noticed by the undersigned tha ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... circumstances of the case and the legal position under consideration, particularly considering the ratio decindi of the above cited cases, the disallowance of 25% out of the bogus as well as unverifiable purchases totaling to Rs. 1,00,40,088/- is upheld, which comes to Rs. 25,10,022/- and balance addition of Rs. 5,02,004/- is deleted." The ld CIT(A) has further held regarding commission payment as under:- "I have considered the submission of ld. AR and have perused the material on record. It has already been held that various parties as mentioned in the preceding paras had given bogus bill to the appellant by charging commission at the rate of .25%. Accordingly, the Assessing Officer was justified in adding Rs. 25,100/- as commissi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... please be confirmed. 6. We have heard the rival contentions of both the parties and perused the material available on the record. Similar line of cases, this Bench has decided in the case of Shri Anuj Kumar Varshney Vs. I.T.O. and other cases in ITA No. 187/JP/2012 order dated 22/10/2014 wherein 15% disallowances has been held reasonable on considering the detail discussion on facts and legal position on unverifiable purchases/bogus purchases. Accordingly, we also apply 15% disallowances on unverifiable purchases in this case also. The Assessing Officer is directed to recalculate the income as per above direction. 6.1 With regard to the commission payment and payment of insurance, the ld CIT(A) had given detailed findings on these issues ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
