9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (7) TMI 1859X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e CIT(A)’s decision in restricting the disallowance to 15% on account of such purchases, despite the books results are already offered by the assessee, is fair and reasonable. Accordingly, the grounds raised by the assessee are dismissed. - ITA No. 1495/PUN/2016, ITA No. 639/PUN/2016 - - - Dated:- 20-7-2018 - Shri D. Karunakara Rao And Shri Vikas Awasthy, JJ. Assessee by : Shri Prayag Jha Respondent by : Shri Mukesh Jha ORDER D. Karunakara Rao, These are Cross appeals filed by the Assessee and the Revenue against the order of CIT(A)-2, Pune, dated 01.02.2016 for the A.Y. 2009-10. We shall take up the appeal of the Revenue first. ITA No.1495/PUN/2016 By Revenue A.Y. 2009-10 2. Grounds raised by t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e in the list of Hawala Operators. Accordingly, AO issued notice u/s.148 of the Act after recording the reasons. Assessee made CST on such purchases as the parties are outside the Maharashtra State. Such tax paid was not eligible for VAT set-off. It was alleged that in order to avail VAT set off, assessee replaced the purchases from the above parties with bills obtained from local parties. Assessee furnished relevant particulars before the AO such as, bill numbers, amount of bills, name of the commodities purchases, quantity purchased, transporters name, vehicle numbers, LR numbers, transport agency, payments etc. At the end of the assessment proceedings, AO made addition of ₹ 50,43,126/- as non-genuine purchases. 4. AO also made a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ustaining the addition to the extent of ₹ 7,56,469/- as well as deletion of addition of ₹ 7,05,512/- in respect of the purchases made from M/s. Shah Industries and M/s. Siddhi Vinayaka Corporation, the Revenue is in appeal. Aggrieved with the confirmation of addition of ₹ 7,56,469/-, the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. 7. At the outset, Ld. AR for the assessee submitted that the appeal filed by the Department is liable to be dismissed on account of low tax effect. The Ld. AR pointed that as per CBDT Circular No.3/2018 dated 11th July, 2018, the monetary limit for filing of appeal by the Department before the Tribunal is ₹ 20 Lakhs, therefore, the appeal filed by the Department is not maintainable. 8. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of quantity and the assessee had not earned any profit on these purchase which was not recorded in the books of account. 2. The Ld.CIT(A) was not justified in sustaining addition of ₹ 7,56,469/- only on the basis of presumption and surmises and without any material to support his conclusion. 12. From the above grounds, it is evident that the assessee is aggrieved with the decision of CIT(A) in sustaining the addition to the extent of ₹ 7,56,469/- on account of purchases made from M/s. Shah Industries and M/s. Siddhi Vinayaka Corporation by adopting 15% of GP on such purchases. The details of such purchases are already was briefed in the above paragraphs. 13. After hearing both the parties on this solitary issue and on ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... accordingly confirmed. 14. From the above, it is evident that assessee furnished the purchase bills and the evidences for payment to the suppliers through banking channels. Copies of the bank statements are evident in the records. Nowhere it is mentioned that the assessee failed to prove the trail of goods to the premises of the assessee. Further, it is not the case of mere buying the accommodation entries through the entry operators but there is an undisputed fact of buying the equivalent purchases from the grey market. Therefore, it is a case of not offering the relevant profits properly in the return of income. Therefore, the CIT(A) s decision in restricting the disallowance to 15% on account of such purchases, despite the books resu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
