9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (11) TMI 503X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... only issue in this appeal of assessee is against the order of CIT(A) estimating 12.5% as profit on bogus purchases. For this assessee has raised the following grounds: - "1. Learned CIT(Appeal) erred in adding profit @ 12.5% on the purchases effected from registered dealers and erred in treating the same as bogus purchase ignoring the detailed evidences brought on record & further erred in levying interest thereon and ignoring the judicial precedents brought to his knowledge. 2. Learned CIT(Appeal) erred in adding the purchases profit @ 12.5% on the purchases on the basis of information received from Sales Tax Authorities which contrary to the material fact on record and more particularly disallowance is contrary to the provisions of S ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ssessment proceedings required the assessee to file the details of purchase. The assessee filed copies of purchase bills from the above said parties, copies of ledger extract and copies of bank statements to prove the payments by cheque. The AO required the assessee to produce these parties for verification but assessee expressed his inability to do so. According to the AO, the assessee failed to establish the genuineness of the purchase and accordingly, he made addition of profit rate @ 25% of unproved purchase at Rs. 26,99,108/- to the returned income of the assessee. Aggrieved, assessee preferred the appeal before CIT(A), who estimate the disallowance at 12.5% of the bogus purchases by observing in para 5.3.5 and by following the decisio ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... & 2572/M/2016 dtd. 02.08.2017; viii) B.J Exports vs. Asstt. Commissioner of Income tax, ITA No. 5442-5444/Mum/2016 dated 13.09.2017, ix) Batliboi Environmental Engineering Ltd. vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax, ITA No. 2840 & 3482/M12015 dated 15.03.2017, x) Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax & Anr. Vs. Remi Process Plant & Machinery Ltd. & Anr., [TA No. 1723/M/2015, 1817/14/2015 dated 21.03.2017. In view of the above discussed factual matric and precedents, I am of the view that estimation of 12.5% as against 25% made by the AO, as profit embedded in impugned purchases shown from the alleged hawala parties and adding the same to the total income returned, would meet the ends of justice. Therefore, I direct the AO to estimate th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
