9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (8) TMI 1328X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s of miscellaneous application filed by the assessee are reproduced as under: 2. Even though the order passed by the Hon'ble bench is a speaking order, yet contains certain factual mistakes that needs to be corrected as per the provisions of section 254(2)of the Act: We would like to submit a. that during the course of hearing the Hon'ble Senior Member had given clear cut indication in the open court that in diamond industry embedded profit is around 3%-5%, so the Hon'ble Beach would restrict it to addition to 3% - 5% of alleged bogus purchases,( Our AR Sh.Bharat Kumar had informed us about it after hearing was over),But in the final order of Hon'ble Bench has added 12.50% of the alleged bogus purchases to our income. The ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... are not liable to be added n/s. 69C of the Act. Reliance Place on in case of M/a. R. R. Oomerbhoy Pvt. Ltd. Vide ITA No. 4223/Mum/2017 15. In the case of Parekh Corporation UI Building (32 CCH 129) the Tribunal has discussed the applicability of pro visions of section G9C of the Act and has held as under: " .. . . In so far as the application of 69C is concerned, we find that the same cannot be attracted because section 69C applies here in any financial year find assessee has incurred any expenditure and he offers no explanation about the source of such expenditure or pan thereof, or the explanation, if any of by the assessee is not satisfactory. It is then that the amount covered by such expenditure nr part thereof is deemed as income ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rat on 31.10.2014 explaining the entire facts of the case and the circumstances warranting him to file two affidavits. 12. In the case of M/s M.B. Jewellers & Sons (I.T.A No. l/K.ol/2017) one of the supplier was M/s AVI Export and addition in that case has been deleted by Honorable tribunal as staled earlier. 13. In the case of Manoj Begani (l.TA, No. 932/KoI/20l7)addition made on the basis of Rajendra Jain stands deleted." e. Hon'ble ITAT has placed reliance on earlier year's case. But we would like to submit that facts for the year under consideration are different and distinguishable from the facts of the earlier year. Relevant paragraphs of the order passed for the earlier year are reproduced as under, 7. Now, coining lo the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... x department but in this cases facts and circumstances are different." Further, it was specifically stated that there were four parties in the order for the earlier year whereas for the year under appeal there was only one party that figured in last year's list. It is also a fact that last year the Ld, CIT (A) had passed ex party order. g. We had also submitted that assessee GP is 4.85% and further making addition 12.50% which lead GP 17.35% which is against the nature of trade in diamond and this very important aspect remained to be considered by Hon'ble Bench. h. It was also brought to the notice of the Hon'ble Bench that the Sales Tax department had accepted these transactions as genuine transactions, as we had submitte ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
