9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (7) TMI 23X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hile passing a speaking order on technical ground after granting reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee. Accordingly, all the issues raised by the assessee in this appeal both on legal as well as on merits are allowed for statistical purposes. - ITA Nos.2916 & 2917/PUN/2016, ITA Nos.243 & 244/PUN/2017Assessment Years : 2010-11 & 2011-12 - - - Dated:- 27-6-2019 - Shri D. Karunakara Rao And Shri Vikas Awasthy, JJ. Assessee by: Shri Sanket Joshi Revenue by: Shri N. Ashok Babu ORDER D. Karunakara Rao, There are two sets of cross appeals i.e. four appeals filed by the assessee as well as by the Revenue involving the assessment years 2010-11 and 2011-12 under con ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d others Vs. DCIT in ITA No.795/PUN/2014, relating to assessment year 2010-11, decided on 28-04-2017 should apply and the disallowance should be restricted only @ 10% of the bogus purchases. 6. The ld. DR for the Revenue, on the other hand, relied heavily on the orders of the Assessing Officer and the CIT(A). 7. On hearing both the parties, we find this is a case of bogus purchases reassessed by reopening the completed assessment. The assessee raised the issue of violation to the principle of natural justice raised in the grounds on the basis of change of opinion . Deviating from the above legal issue, referring to the merits of addition, the assessee relied heavily on the order of the Co-ordinate Bench of the Tribu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... itions limited to the extent of bringing the G.P. rate on purchases at the same rate of other genuine purchases. The decision of the Gujarat High Court in the case of N.K. I (supra) cannot be applied without reference to the facts. In fact in paragraph 8 of the same Judgment the Court held and observed as under- So far as the question regarding addition of ₹ 3,70,78,125/- as gross profit on sales of ₹ 37.08 Crores made by the Assessing Officer despite the fact that the said sales had admittedly been recorded in the regular books during Financial Year 1997-98 is concerned, we are of the view that the assessee cannot be punished since sale price is accepted by the revenue. Therefore, even if 6 % gross profit is taken ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ion at the rate of 10% of bogus purchases is warranted. Rather the addition should be made to the extent of difference between the gross profit rate on genuine purchases and gross profit rate of hawala purchases. Such details are not readily available with the ld. AR as well to facilitate the calculation of gross profit rates of genuine and hawala purchases. Under these circumstances, I set-aside the impugned and remit the matter to the file of AO for applying the ratio laid down by the Hon ble Jurisdictional High Court in the above noted case and recompute the amount of addition, if any, after allowing a reasonable opportunity of hearing to the assessee. 9. From the above, it is evident that restricting the disallowance @ 10% ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... appeal of the Revenue is dismissed. 13. Now, coming to another year of the cross appeals i.e. A.Y. 2011-12 filed by the assessee as well as by the Revenue. ITA No.2917/PUN/2016 A.Y. 2011-12 - By Assessee ITA No.244/PUN/2017 A.Y. 2011-12 - By Revenue 14. Since the cross appeals of the assessee and the Revenue for the assessment year 2010-11 have been adjudicated by us in the preceding paragraphs of this order and remanded the issue raised in assessee s appeal to the file of the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication and dismissed the grounds as academic raised in revenue s appeal, therefore, our decision in cross appeals for the assessment year 2010-11 shall apply mutatis-mutandis to this cro ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
