9911796707
TMI Blog2012 (10) TMI 1211X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... TA No.2848/Ahd/2008 A.Y.2005-2006 (Assessee s appeal) 2. The grounds raised in the assessee s appeal are as under: 1. The ld.ITO has erred in law and on the facts of the appellant s case in assessing the total income of the appellant at ₹ 17,50,328/- instead of ₹ 8,48,960/- returned by the appellant. 2. The ld.ITO has erred in law and on the facts of the appellant s case in making addition of ₹ 9,01,368/- on the erroneous plea that purchases made by the appellant from M/s.R.R.Patel Trading Corporation is bogus. 3. The learned counsel for the assessee submitted that the AO has made addition by holding the goods purchased from M/s.R.R.Patel Tra ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e case of Alap Shirishbhai Derasary. 4. The learned DR has opposed the submissions of the learned counsel of the assessee. He referred to relevant portions of the assessment order in support of the case of the revenue. He submitted that the assessee could not prove genuineness of the purchases made from RRP , and therefore the entire purchase amount from RRP was rightly added by the AO. He relied on the order of the AO. 5. We have considered rival submissions carefully and perused the orders of the AO and the CIT(A). We find that the CIT(A) has passed a well reasoned speaking order on the issue. The assessee has shown that the goods purchased from RRP were actually delivered to reputed concern like Video ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... me percentage of purchase amount from RRP has to be disallowed taking into account the facts of the case and difference in purchase rate and the difference in GP rate of transactions of RRP when compared to other transactions of the assessee excluding the transaction with RRP . We find that various decisions of the ITAT, Ahmedabad Bench cited by the learned counsel for the assessee were given in the light of facts of each case and could not taken as a binding precedent for all cases of bogus purchases. Considering the entirety of the factual matrix of the case and the amount of difference in purchase rate and also difference in GP rate, which was lower in transaction relating to RRP , we are of the view that ends of the justice shall ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . 9. The ground no.2 of the Revenue s appeal is as under: 2. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the ld.CIT(A) erred in deleting the addition of ₹ 41,121/- made on account of disallowance of 1/5th of petrol expenses, repairs and depreciation, insurance on vehicles telephone expenses etc., stating that the AO has made the disallowance on presumptive basis ignoring the ratio laid down in the decision of the Hon ble Gujarat High Court in he case of Sayaji Iron Engineering Co. Ltd., Vs. CIT,213 ITR 749 (Guj). 10. We have heard parties. The CIT(A) has passed a well reasoned order on the issue of disallowance out of petrol expenses etc. and no reason has ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r, we direct the AO to restrict the addition to 20% of the purchase amount made by the assessee from RRP as against addition of 25% made by the CIT(A), and accordingly, the ground nos.2 and 3 of the assessee s appeal are partly allowed. ITA No.2973/Ahd/2009 Asstt.Year 2006-2007 (Revenue s appeal) 16. The only ground in this appeal of the revenue reads as under: 1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case in law, the ld.CIT(A) in deleting ₹ 96,60,274/- from the addition made of ₹ 1,28,80,366/- on account of bogus purchase from R.R.Patel Trading Corporation, stating that the issue is covered under the proviso of Section 40A(3) ignoring the provisos of sec ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
