9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (12) TMI 785X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sessee to the income of the assessee. - ITA No. 2091/Mum/2016 - - - Dated:- 23-10-2017 - SHRI RAJENDRA, AM AND SHRI RAM LAL NEGI, JM For The Assessee : Shri Satish R. Mody (AR) For The Revenue : Shri V. Jenardhanan (DR) ORDER PER RAM LAL NEGI, JM This appeal has been filed by the assessee against order dated 22/02/2016 passed by the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-30, Mumbai, pertaining to the Assessment Year 2011-12, whereby the Ld. CIT (A) has partly allowed the appeal filed by the assessee against assessment order passed u/s 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short the Act ). 2. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee the sole proprietor M/s Raj Hans Metal Syndicate, engaged in the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 3. Feeling aggrieved, the assessee challenged the assessment order before the Ld. CIT (A). The Ld. CIT (A) after hearing the assessee partly allowed the appeal and restricted the addition to 12.5% of the bogus purchases made by the AO. 4. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal against the impugned order passed by the Ld. CIT (A):- 1. The Learned Commissioner of Income tax had erred in retaining and adding an addition of ₹ 985,120/- being 12.5% of the total purchases amounting to ₹ 78,80,961/- details on page no. 5 of assessment order. 2. The Learned Commissioner of Income Tax has erred in ignoring the contents of the following decisions: a. DCIT 25(3) vs. Rajeev G. Kalathil I.T.A. No. 672 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e Ld. counsel further submitted that since, the findings of the Ld. CIT(A) is not based on the law laid down by the various High Courts and the decisions of the various Bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, the same is liable to be set aside. 6. On the other hand, the Departmental Representative (DR) relying on the findings of the Ld. CIT(A) submitted that the Ld.CIT (A) has rightly sustained the addition to 12.5% of the bogus purchases made by the assessee during the relevant year. Since, the assessee has failed to prove genuineness of the transaction, there is no reason to interfere with the findings of the Ld. CIT(A) 7. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the entire record and also gone through the cases relied up ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t/assessee. The Hon ble Gujrat High Court in CIT vs. Simit P. Seth 356 ITR 451(Guj) upheld the decision of the Tribunal and sustained the addition 12.5% of the total bogus purchases holding that only profit element embedded in such purchases can be added to income of the assessee. Hence, following the principles law laid down by the Hon ble High Courts of Bombay and Gujarat, discussed above, we uphold the order of the Ld. CIT(A) and dismiss all the grounds of appeal of the assessee and direct the AO to make addition @ 12.5% of the total amount of bogus purchases made by the assessee to the income of the assessee. In the result, appeal filed by the assessee for assessment year 2011-12 is dismissed. Order pronounced in the open court ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
