9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (7) TMI 1085X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he same to 4% of alleged bogus purchases as well as purchases made by the assessee from Amee Enterprises. Accordingly, we estimate the additions @4% of aggregate purchases of ₹ 3,86,98,368/- made by the assessee from these entities including purchases made from Amee Enterprises. The same comes to ₹ 15,47,935/-. Appeal of revenue stand partly allowed. - I .T.A. No.5835/Mum/2015, I .T.A. No.753/Mum/2016 And .T.A. No.755/Mum/2016 - - - Dated:- 13-7-2018 - SHRI C.N. PRASAD, JM AND SHRI MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL, AM For The Revenue : Rajesh Kumar Yadav, Ld.DR For The Assessee : Kirit Sanghvi, Ld. AR ORDER Per Bench 1. Aforesaid appeals by revenue for Assessment Years [AY] 2009-10 to 2011-12 contest s ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... quest. The assessee raised objections against reopening which was rejected. 4.1 During reassessment proceedings, to confirm the purchases transactions, notices u/s 133(6) were issued to few parties. However, the same elicited no satisfactory response with respect to twelve such parties aggregating to ₹ 3,82,93,388/-, the details of which has been extracted in para-9 of the quantum assessment order. The assessee defended the purchases made by contending that the purchased goods were duly accounted for in the books of account and the payments were through banking channels. However, it was noted that as per information received from Sales Tax Department, Maharashtra, the aforesaid parties were hawala dealers and further, the ass ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... [DR], Shri Rajesh Kumar Yadav, submitted that the assessee miserably failed to substantiate the purchase transactions despite being provided with adequate opportunity and thus, failed to discharge the initial onus casted upon him in this regard. Hence, Ld. CIT(A) was not justified in shifting the onus on Ld. AO to provide substantial relief to the assessee. The same was controverted by Ld. Authorized Representative for Assessee [DR], Shri Kirit Sanghvi, who submitted that the assessee accepted the verdict of Ld. CIT(A) and the same was just and proper. It was submitted that the purchased goods were duly accounted for in the books of accounts as evidenced by stock register maintained by the assessee. 7. We have carefully heard the riv ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... o 4% of alleged bogus purchases as well as purchases made by the assessee from Amee Enterprises. Accordingly, we estimate the additions @4% of aggregate purchases of ₹ 3,86,98,368/- made by the assessee from these entities including purchases made from Amee Enterprises . The same comes to ₹ 15,47,935/-. The order of Ld. first appellate authority stand modified to that extent. Consequently, the stand of Ld. CIT(A) in deleting the additional Gross profit Addition of ₹ 6,62,475/- stand confirmed. 8. Both the representatives, during the course of hearing, placed on record contrary judgments of various judicial authorities to support their view point. However, we find the matter to be factual one wherein the decision is ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... infirmity is found in the action of Ld. CIT(A) in deleting additional Gross profit addition of ₹ 16,24,666/- as made by Ld. AO. Resultantly, these grounds of revenue s appeal stand partly allowed. 11. The revenue, in this AY, is further aggrieved by deletion of an addition of cash credit of ₹ 10 Lacs u/s 68 as made by Ld. AO but deleted by Ld. CIT(A). The details of the same could be tabulated in the following manner:- No. Name of Lender Amount of Loan taken Reasons for making additions by Ld. AO Reasons of deletion by Ld. CIT(A) 1. Ramesh Bhai ₹ 5 Lacs Lo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
