9911796707
TMI Blog2020 (10) TMI 832X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ected the AO to make addition to the extent of shortfall to make the gross profit to 15%. We set aside the impugned order passed by the CIT (A) and direct the AO to determine the GP of the assessee @ 16.81%, which is the GP of the assessee in previous assessment year holding that the expected GP cannot be less than the GP achieved in the previous assessment year. - ITA No. 1430/MUM/2019 - - - Dated:- 21-9-2020 - Shri S. Rifaur Rahman (AM) And Shri Ram Lal Negi (JM) For the Assessee : Shri Vimal Punmiya (AR) For the Revenue : Shri Michael Jerald (DR) ORDER PER RAM LAL NEGI, JM The assessee has filed the present appeal against the order dated 15.01.2018 passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-20 (fo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 50,69,250/-. Aggrieved by the assessment order, the assessee challenged the assessment order before the Ld. CIT (A). Since, the assessee did not appear before the Ld. CIT (A) despite several opportunities given to present its case, the Ld. CIT(A) proceeded ex parte holding that the assessee is not interested in pursuing its appeal and decided the same on the basis of material available on record. The assessee is in appeal against the impugned order passed by the Ld. CIT (A). 3. The assessee has challenged the impugned order passed by the Ld. CIT (A) on the following effective grounds:- 1. On the facts and circumstances of the case the Ld. CIT (A) erred in confirming the additions of the genuine purchases of ₹ 2,03,503/- and th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... l without prejudice submitted that in any case 100% addition is not sustainable in law. The Ld. counsel relied on the various decisions of the ITAT to substantiate his contention. 5. The Ld. counsel further submitted that the issue involved in this case is covered by the order of the Mumbai Tribunal rendered in the case of assessee s sister concern M/s Abhijeet Plastic India Pvt. Ltd., ITA No. 1426 to 1428/Mum/2019. In the said case the Tribunal dealt with the identical issue and directed the AO to make addition to the extent of shortfall in gross profit in the assessment years 2010-11 and 2011-12 to make the same 15%. 6. On the other hand, the Ld. Departmental Representative (DR) admitted that in the case of Abhijeet Plastic India Lt ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... se. So far as addition is concerned, in the present case, the Ld. CIT(A) has confirmed the 100% addition made by the AO, which is contrary to the ratio laid down by the various courts and the Tribunal relied upon by the assessee. As pointed out by the Ld. counsel, the SMC Bench of the Mumbai Tribunal has dealt with the identical issue in the case of Abhijeet Plastic India Pvt. Ltd. vs. DCIT, (supra) directed the AO to make addition to the extent to shortfall to make the GP at 15%. The findings of the coordinate Bench read as under: 5. On the other hand, the learned D.R. relied on the orders passed by the authorities below and contended that the AO has made detailed enquiry with regard to the genuineness of purchases and thereafter came ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ddition to the extent of shortfall in gross profit in these two years as compared to the gross profit of 15% i.e. 2.25% in A.Y. 2010-11 0.12 @ in A.Y. 2011-12. I direct accordingly. 7. In the result, the appeal for A.Y. 2009-10 is allowed whereas appeals for A.Y. 2010-11 and A.Y. 2011-12 are allowed in part, in terms indicated hereinabove. 8. As pointed out by the Ld. counsel, M/s Abhijeet Plastic India Pvt. Ltd. is also engaged in the business of manufacturing moulds and dies. The AO made 100% addition of the alleged bogus purchases. In the first appeal, the Ld. CIT(A) confirmed the addition. In the further appeal, the ITAT set aside the order passed by the Ld. CIT(A) and directed the AO to make addition to the extent of shortf ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
