9911796707
TMI Blog2020 (2) TMI 137X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... BENCH: These cross appeals filed by the assessee, as well as the revenue are directed against separate, but identical orders of the Ld. Commissioner of Income tax (Appeals)-53, Mumbai, all dated 15/10/2018 for the AY 2011-12 to 2014-15. Since, facts are identical and issues are common, for the sake of convenience, these appeals were heard together and are disposed-off by this consolidated order. 2. The assessee, as well as the revenue have taken common grounds of appeal in their respective appeals filed for all assessment years. Therefore, for the sake of brevity grounds of appeal filed by the assessee as well as, the revenue for AY 2011-12 are reproduced as under:- ITA NO.7080/Mum/2018 for AY 2011-12:- 3. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal for AY 2011-12:- 1. On the fads and circumstances of the Appellant's case and in law the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred in confirming that the appellant has entered into accommodation transactions with Rajendra Jain Group, Sanjay Chaudhari Group and Dharmi Chand Group. 2. On the facts and circumstances of the Appellant's case and in law the Ld. Commissioner of In ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... that the assessee company is engaged in the business of import, manufacturing and export diamonds. The company stated that it is 100% export oriented unit. The assessee purchased diamonds from local market and after processing, the same has been exported to various countries. A search and seizure action u/s 132 of the I.T.Act, 1961 was conducted in the case of the assessee on 05/05/2014. During the course of search, it was noticed that the assessee had taken accommodation entries of bogus purchases from various suspicious concerns ,like companies controlled by Rajendra Jain group, Sanjay Chaudhari Group and Dharmi Chand Group. This fact has been further supported by the fact of search action conducted by the investigation wing, Mumbai in the cases of Rajendra Jain group, Sanjay Chaudhari Group and Dharmi Chand Group on 03/10/2013. Consequent to search, notice u/s 153A of the I.T.Act, 1961 was issued. In response to the notice, the assessee has not submitted any returns. Thereafter, notices u/s 142(1) was issued on 23/09/2016. The assessee has finally filed return on 08/10/2016, in response to notice issued u/s 153A. The case was selected for scrutiny and during the course ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... urchase. The relevant findings of the Ld.CIT(A) are as under: 4.27. The data of the profits disclosed, the impugned purchased, and the disallowances made by the assessing officer is tabulated below: A.Y. TOTAL SALES GROSS PROFIT NET PROFIT PURCHASES (RS.) ALELGED BOGUS PURCHASE DISALLOWANCE IN ASSESSMENT NET PROFIT % AFTER DISALLOWANCE AMT.(RS.) % AMT.(RS) % 2011-12 3,11,38,50,054 12,18,25,187 3,91 1,58,44,033 0.51 2,77,90,46,535 56,22,14,315 4,49,77,145 1.95 2012-13 4,30,73,45,369 12,75,67,536 2.96 2,29,62,442 0.53 3,97,07,15,479 83 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r considering the net profit disclosed, disallowance is computed @ 5.49% of the impugned purchases. Accordingly, the addition to the total income is restricted to 5.49 % of the purchases of ₹ 56.22,14,315/- which works out to Rs., 3,08,65,565/-. The appellant gets a relief of Rs, l,41,11,580/-. 8. None appeared for the assessee. We have heard the Ld. DR and perused the material available on record and gone through orders of the authorities below. We find that the Ld. AO has made additions towards alleged non genuine bogus purchase from certain parties, on the basis of information gathered during the course of search and survey in the case of the assesee and its associates and also, on the basis of information received from investigation wing, as per which certain parties were involved in providing accommodation entries of bogus purchase bills to various parties and the assessee being one of the beneficiary of accommodation entry of such bogus purchase bills issued by suspicious dealers/entry providers. The Ld. AO has extensively discussed the issue in light of modus operandi used by the entry providers, their statement recorded during the course of search and ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... providers and such beneficiaries have admitted taking of accommodation entries from the group concerns of entry providers. In fact, a search action in the case of the assessee was conducted, which proved taking accommodation entries. The Ld.CIT(A), further noted that although, the director of the company denied the contents of statements given by the entry provider and their employees, but, on perusal of evidence collected during the course of search in the form of e-mail , it is seen that the employees of asessee company Ravi Jangle, Vilas Palasmakar etc have been allotted e-mail by the assesee on the web portal of the said group, also the password of these e-mails starts with the decent only. On perusal of these e-mail, it is seen that the email have been sent to Anoop Jain of Anadi Impex, a company controlled by Rajedndra Jain for requisition of accommodation purchase bills, as per the specification mentioned in the e-mail for cut and polished diamonds. Hence, these emails exchanged between concerns of Rajendra Jain and employees of assessee independently proves that the assessee is indulged in accepting accommodation bills in the form of bogus purchase form entry provider ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
