9911796707
TMI Blog2020 (8) TMI 267X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... h necessary evidences or any comparable cases. As consistent with view taken by the Co-ordinate Bench in number of cases, including in assessee own case for AY 2009-10, we are of the considered opinion that 8% rate of profit adopted by the ld. CIT(A) appears to be reasonable and accordingly, we are inclined to uphold the findings of the ld. CIT(A) and dismiss appeal filed by the Revenue. - ITA No. 1217/Mum/2019 - - - Dated:- 22-6-2020 - HON BLE SHRI MAHAVIR SINGH, VICE PRESIDENT And HON BLE SHRI G. MANJUNATHA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Assessee by : Shri Forum Mehta, AR Revenue by : Ms. Samatha Mullamudi, CIT-DR ORDER PER G. MANJUNATHA (A.M.): This appeal filed by the Revenue is directed against order of the Ld. Co ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... has not established the genuineness of transaction with the party as it failed to produce the party and to furnish the confirmation of transaction with said party/transportation details. 5. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, ld.CIT(A) has erred in restricting the quantum addition ignoring that the information on account of bogus purchases is received from the external agency that the assessee had received accommodation entry from such party. 6. Though the tax effect in this case is ₹ 3,78,386/-, however this appeal has been filed because it is covered by exception mentioned in para 10{e) of the CBDT Circular No. 3/2018 dt 11-7-2018 as subsequently clarified by Board letter did 20/08/2018 vide ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... has reitrated its submission made before the ld. AO. The sum and substance of arguments of the assessee before the Ld.CIT(A) are that purchase from the above party is genuine, which is supported by necessary evidences. Therefore, no additions could be made on the basis of information received from third party. The Ld.CIT(A), after considering relevant submission of the assessee and also, by following the decision of Hon ble Gujarat High Court, in the case of CIT vs. Simith P. Sheth (356 ITR 451) and ITAT, Mumbai order in case of assessee for AY 2009-10, has scaled down addition made by the ld. AO to 8% profit on alleged total bogus purchases from those parties. 5. We have heard both the parties and perused the material available on reco ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ry evidences. Although, assessee has filed certain basic evidences, but failed to file further evidences to conclusively prove purchases to the satisfactions of the Ld.AO. Further, mere payment by cheque does not prove the genuineness of purchase, more particularly when other circumstantial evidence says otherwise. At the same time, the Ld. AO had also failed to take the investigation to a logical conclusion by carrying out necessary enquires, but he solely relied upon information received from investigation wing, which was further supported by information received from Maharashtra Sales Tax Department. The AO neither pointed out any discrepancies in books of accounts nor made out a case of sales outside books of accounts. In fact, the AO d ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
