9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (9) TMI 524X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s 2008-09 to 2010-11. Appeals bearing ITA No.7164 and 7165/Mum/2016 have been filed by the assessee and appeals bearing ITA No.7200 and 7101/M/2016 are the cross-appeals by the revenue. Since issue involved in all these appeals pertains to the addition on account of bogus purchase, these appeals were clubbed together, heard together and are being disposed of by this common order, for the sake of convenience though relate to different assessees. In appeals No.7167 to 7169/Mum/2016, neither the assessee nor their authorized representative appeared before this Tribunal when the appeals were called for hearing nor any application seeking adjournment of the hearing was received in the office of the Tribunal despite service of notice through R ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... assessment year if the income which as escaped assessment is or likely to be Rs. 1 lakh or more. In this case, the assessment year involved is AY 2008-09. The notice u/s 148 can be issued before 31.3.2015 as the income which has escaped assessment is more than Rs. 1 lakh. In this case, the notice u/s 148 has been issued on 17.12.2012 which is also within 4 years and not even six years. The ground taken by the appellant is factually wrong. The notice issued u/s 148 is well within the tie and the assessment order is also not time barred. This ground of appeal is dismissed" 5. We have carefully considered the contentions of ld.DR and perused the material placed before us including the orders of authorities below. We find from the record that ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e books of account and finally concluded that the GP rate at the rate of 12.%% would be reasonable. Aggrieved by the order of ld.CIT(A), the assessee is in appeal before us. 9. After hearing the ld. DR and perusing the record placed before us, we find that the assessee has availed the entries of bogus purchases from M/s Hari Om Traders Rs. 33,53,979/- and from M/s Mayur Enterprises Rs. 69,76,382/-. During the assessment proceedings, the assessee neither filed any documentary evidence nor co-operated with the AO. As a result, the AO added the entire bogus purchase to the total income of the assessee and thus finalized the assessment exparte. In the appellate proceedings, the ld.CIT(A) after examining the various records sustained the additi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Accordingly, we uphold the action of the ld.CIT(A). Accordingly, ground no.7 taken by the assessee stands dismissed. 12. Grounds of appeal no.8 is with regard to the confirmation of addition of Rs. 1,64,362/- as income from other sources on account of various receipts as appearing in the AIR data on which the TDS have been deducted by the respective parties. 13. We find from the order of ld.CIT(A), the assessee has failed to produce the evidences of Rs. 1,64,362/- with regards to various receipts as appearing in AIR on which TDS was also deducted. In our opinion the FAA has rightly directed the AO to verify whether the said income has been declared by the assessee in the return of income and if not assess accordingly. The AO is directed t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tion 147 of the Act vide assessment order dated 24.3.2015. 20. In the appellate proceedings, the FAA partly allowed the appeal of the assessee by sustaining the addition to the extent of Rs. 25% of the total bogus purchases. The ld.CIT(A) observed that since GP rate has gone down from 12.91% in AY 2008-09 (non-hawala purchase year) to 8.69% and 7.02% in AY 2010-11 and AY 2011-12 respectively due to hawala purchases by the assessee. The ld. CIT(A) also observed that the GP of the assessee for this year after disallowing bogus purchases has gone very high i.e.25% to 27% as against the GP at the rate of 12.91% in the assessment year 2008-09. 21. After hearing rival parties and on perusal of the record including the impugned orders, we find t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... cided the issue by partly sustaining the addition at 8 % of the purchases in ITA No.7164/Mum/2016, we apply the same analogy to this appeal as well and direct the AO to make the addition at 8% of the alleged purchases to this appeal. 23. Resultantly, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed. ITA NO.7200 and 7201/Mum/2016 24. These are the cross appeal by the revenue. Since we have decided the appeals of the assessee for these assessment years partly in favour of the assessee by applying GP rate to the extent of 8% of total bogus purchase, the appeals filed by the revenue become infructuous. Accordingly, the appeals of the revenue are dismissed. 25. In the result, the appeals of the assessee stand partly allowed and that of revenue are ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
