9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (9) TMI 184X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ightly invoked the power u/s 147/148 of the Act on the basis of the information received from the Sales Tax Department. Accordingly, we decide these issues in favour of the revenue against the assessee. Addition i.e. 12.5% of the bogus purchase - HELD THAT:- In the settled law in SIMIT P SHETH [ 2013 (10) TMI 1028 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT] the profit embedded to the transaction was taken into consideration and in these cases, the profit embedded to the transaction was to the extent of 12.5%. In the instant case, the profit is very low. Taking into account, all the facts and circumstances, we are of the view that the end of justice would met if the addition be restricted to the extent of 6% of the bogus purchase. Accordingly, we set aside the finding of the CIT(A) on this issue and restrict the addition to the extent of 6% of the bogus purchase. - I.T.A. Nos.7051/M/2017, 7052/M/2017, 6816/M/2017 - - - Dated:- 10-6-2019 - SHRI R. C. SHARMA, AM AND SHRI AMARJIT SINGH, JM Assessee by: Shri D. V. Lakhani Rohan Shah (AR) Department by: Shri Manoj Kumar Singh(DR) ORDER PER AMARJIT SINGH, JM: The assessee as well as the revenue have filed the above men ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Ground No. 5 the appellant prays that interest u/s 234B be levied On the final tax liability that may be determined after giving effect the order of Hon ble tribunal. 7. The appellant craves leave to add, alter or amend the grounds of appeal which are without prejudice to one other. 4. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee filed his return of income on 03.09.2009 declaring total income to the tune of ₹ 1,23,820/-. The assessment was completed u/s 143(3) of the Act determining total income to the tune of ₹ 1,23,820/-. Thereafter, an information was received from the office of DGIT (Inv.), Mumbai regarding Hawala Operators and beneficiaries involving huge amounts. The said information was received from the Sales Tax Department who identified such Hawala Operators. The information received from the Sales Tax Department was forwarded to this office in the case of M/s. Halan International who is one of the beneficiary and made purchases from the following parties.:- S. No. Name Purchased from PAN Amount 1 Halan International ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he information received from the office of DGIT(Inv.), Mumbai regarding Hawala Operators and beneficiaries involving huge amount. This information was received from the Sales Tax Department who identified such Hawala Operators after carrying proper inquiry. The assessee purchased the material from all the parties mentioned above total in sum of ₹ 46,84,160/- The AO conducted the enquiry and also issued the notice u/s 133(6) of the Act which was not served being addressee were not residing there. The AO also sent the Ward, Inspector at the address of the bogus seller/hawala dealer but the hawala dealers were not found there. However, the assessee submitted his explanation by virtue of letter dated 04.03.2015 but the same was not found justifiable by the AO. AO invoked the power u/s 147/148 of the Act on the basis of information received from the Sales Tax Authorities in connection with bogus seller/hawala dealer. In this regard, the Hon ble Jurisdictional High Court of Bombay has decided the matter of controversy in the case of Shoreline Hotel P. Ltd. Vs. CIT (2018) 98 taxmann.com 234 (Bom) in which it is specifically held that the AO has justifiably invoked the power on the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he matter boils down to the quantum of disallowance that should be made in the facts of this case. When the purchases are not absolutely proved it implies that the material may have been obtained from some other source and not from these parties. 7. On appraisal of the above said finding, we noticed that after the receipt of an information received DGIT(Inv.), Mumbai, the AO issued the notice u/s 133(6) of the Act. Notice received back unserved being the addressee were not residing there. The AO also deputed the ward Inspector who nowhere found the assessee at their address. The assessee also failed to produce the parties before the AO and nowhere filed any confirmation before the AO. The bank-statement of the hawala dealers were also not produced. However, the assessee produced the books of account etc. It is not in dispute that the assessee had earned meager gross profit i.e. 0.30% on sale turnover of ₹ 92,96,64,130/-. The CIT(A) has decided the case of the assessee on the basis of the decision in the case of CIT Vs. Bholanath Plyfab Pvt. Ltd. (2013) 355 ITR 290 and in the case of CIT Vs. Simit P. Sheth (2013) 2019 Taxman 85 (Guj). In the above settled law the profi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
