9911796707
TMI Blog2020 (10) TMI 95X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... th And Mr. Justice J.B. Pardiwala For the Appellant(s) : Mrs Mauna M Bhatt, Senior Standing Counsel ORAL ORDER (PER : HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE J.B.PARDIWALA) 1. This Tax Appeal under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short the Act, 1961 ) is at the instance of the Revenue and is directed against the order passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Ahmedabad C Bench, Ahmedabad dated 22.10.2019 in ITA No. 3024/AHD/2015 for A.Y. 2011-12. 2. The Revenue has proposed the following substantial question of law for the consideration of this Court:- Whether the Appellate Tribunal has erred in law and on facts in restricting the addition of ₹ 55,61,085/- made on account of bogus purchases to the exten ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ee. 6. The assessee being dissatisfied with the order passed by the CIT(A), preferred appeal before the Appellate Tribunal. The Appellate Tribunal partly allowed the appeal of the assessee by holding that ad hoc addition at the rate of 5% of such purchases would meet with the ends of justice and may also put a quietus to the entire litigation. 7. The assessee being dissatisfied with the order passed by the Appellate Tribunal is here before this Court with the present appeal. 8. We have heard Ms. Mauna Bhatt, the learned Senior Standing Counsel appearing for the Revenue. 9. We take notice of the findings recorded by the Tribunal. The findings are as under:- 10.2 From the preceding discussion we also note that the assessee ha ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Revenue, as the purchases from the local/grey market is normally cheaper, we are inclined to make ad hoc addition at the rate of 5% of such purchases in order to meet the end of justice and to stop the ongoing dispute. In holding so, we find suport and guidance from the judgment of the ITAT Ahmedabad in case of ITO vs.Sun Steel reported in 92 TTJ 1126 wherein it was held as under: At the most it can be presumed that the assessee did not make purchases from the above parties but made from other unregistered dealer and got benefit of margin of purchases from unregistered dealer. We find that to that extent an estimation of profit can be made which will be fair and reasonable under the facts and circumstances of the case. Therefore, for ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
