9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (8) TMI 276X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... line and the ld. CIT(A) sustained the 30% of impugned purchases as per our view the 30% of the impugned purchases is at higher side. Considering the submission of both the parties, the addition is restricted to 12% of total impugned purchases (disputed purchases). The Hon’ble Bombay High Court in CIT vs. Hariram Bhambhani [2015 (2) TMI 907 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT] held that Revenue is not entitled to bring the entire sales consideration to tax but only the profit attributable to the total unrecorded consideration alone can be subject to tax. In view of the above discussion, we restrict the disallowance to 12% of the total impugned/bogus purchases. - Decided partly in favour of assessee. - ITA No.5056/Mum/2016 - - - Dated:- 1-2-2017 - SHR ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... reated as return in response to the said notice. The Assessing Officer (AO) completed the assessment u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 147 of the Act. The AO made the addition by making a disallowance of ₹ 30,61,058/- on account of bogus purchases. Disallowance consist of purchases of ₹ 9,21,752/- from M/s J.M.D. Orgenic and ₹ 21,39,306/- from M/s Chemic Age Enterprises. On appeal before the ld. CIT(A), the disallowance was restricted to 30% of the total additions and remaining (70% of additions) of ₹ 21,42,741/- was deleted. Thus, further aggrieved by the order of ld. CIT(A), the assessee filed the present appeal before us. 3. We have heard the ld. Authorized Representative (AR) of the assessee and ld. Departmental Representativ ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... a substantial relief to the assessee. The assessee is not entitled for any further relief. It was further argued that the assessee failed to prove the transportation of the goods as no documents showing the details of vehicle bills, transportation bills, inward register, stock register and the payment received against such sales. 5. We have considered the rival contention of the parties and gone through the orders of authorities below. During the assessment proceeding, the AO observed that assessee has shown the purchases from M/s JMD Organic of ₹ 9,21,752/- and from M/s Chemic Age Enterprises of ₹ 21,39,306/-. The AO asked the assessee to furnish the supporting evidence in respect of purchases from the parties. The assessee ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ee which is 22.44% and considering the fact of the case and the circumstances sustained to 30% of disallowance holding reasonable in case of assessee instead of disallowance of 100%. We have also considered the fact independently. We are of the considered opinion that under the Income Tax Act only the real income can be taxed by the Revenue. We may further conclude that even if the transaction is not verifiable, the only taxable is the taxable income component, not the entire transaction. The assessee is engaged in the business of trading of Chemicals after considering the rival contention of both the parties, we are of the opinion that in order to fulfill the gap of revenue leakage, the disallowance of reasonable percentage of such impugne ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
