9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (12) TMI 695X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the gross profit ratio would amount to almost 58.29% which is erroneous. It does not arise in the said type of business of the assessee; that there cannot be such a huge profit ratio of 58.29%. Moreover certain material placed by the assessee have not been considered. Therefore, we are of the view that the matter requires to be reconsidered by the Tribunal. Under these circumstances, the second substantial question is answered in favour of the assessee by holding that the authorities committed an error in adding a sum as bogus creditors with respect to credit purchase made by the assessee. As a consequence to answering both the substantial questions of law, the appeal is allowed. - Income Tax Appeal No. 283 of 2010 - - - Dated:- 13-11- ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ified in not adjudicating the ground raised by the appellant, in respect of assumption of jurisdiction for reassessment under Section 147 which is the foundation for a valid assessment, is bad in law on the facts and circumstances of the case? (ii) Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, the notice issued under Section 148 is valid in law? (iii) Whether the Tribunal was justified in law in confirming the additions of ₹ 18,89,884/- being the amount due to M/s. Magnum Trading company and consequently passed a perverse order by confirming the additions made by the Assessing Officer under Section 68 of the Act, on the facts and circumstances of the case? (iv) Whether the Tribunal was justified in law in confirmi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... (ii) Whether the authorities committed an error in adding a sum of ₹ 46,61,745/- as bogus creditors thereby resulting in a gross profit ratio of 58.29%? 5. Learned counsel for the appellant contends that the question of jurisdiction goes to the toot of the case; that the tribunal has not even considered the contentions regarding the jurisdiction for re-assessment under Section 147 of Income Tax Act. his further contention is that the assessing authority committed an error in adding a sum of ₹ 46,61,745/- on the basis that they are bogus creditors. But if such a reasoning is to be accepted, then, in that even, the gross profit ratio would almost amount to 58.29%, which cannot be accepted. The same is disputed by the lea ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ross profit ratio would amount to almost 58.29% which is erroneous. It does not arise in the said type of business of the assesee; that there cannot be such a huge profit ratio of 58.29%. Moreover certain material placed by the assessee have not been considered. Therefore, we are of the view that the matter requires to be reconsidered by the Tribunal. Under these circumstances, the second substantial question is answered in favour of the assessee by holding that the authorities committed an error in adding a sum of ₹ 46,61,745/- as bogus creditors with respect to credit purchase made by the assessee. As a consequence to answering both the substantial questions of law, the appeal is allowed. The order of the Tribunal dated 29.03.201 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
