9911796707
TMI Blog2020 (12) TMI 1153X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... in the nature of business carried out by the assessee, 0.33% net profit declared by the assessee is too low and cannot be accepted. Further even if 24% of the turnover is estimated as the income of the assessee, the assessee should have earned net income of approx. ₹ 98,00,000/-. In the case of the assessee it has only declared net profit of ₹ 1,33,921/-. Considering these facts and circumstances of the case and the report of the Investigation Department of the Revenue, we are of the considered view that the addition made by the Ld. AO for ₹ 98,69,702/- is justifiable when there is a corroborative evidence from the records maintained by the vendors of the assessee that the purchases made by the assessee is bogus. - Deci ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Revenue issued notices u/s. 148 of the Act to the assessee on 27-03-2014, in response to which, the assessee had stated that the return of income filed on 31-10-2007 may be treated as return filed in response to the notice u/s. 148 of the Act, vide letter dt. 09-09-2014. Thereafter, the case was taken up for scrutiny. 4. During the course of scrutiny assessment proceedings, the assessee had explained that one of the partners of the firm [elder brother] travelled to Surat in their own car and contacted the traders. After verifying the quality of the diamonds etc., they were purchased from M/s. Jewel Diam and directly brought to Hyderabad by road. It was further explained that the payment to the vendor was made subsequent to their sale aft ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... urther made the following observations: However, I disagree with the contention of the applicant for the following reasons: a. The applicant submitted that the payment was made only after the sale of diamonds. This is not possible as the diamonds sold, the seller cannot keep a track of diamond used and whether that product has been sold as contended by the applicant. The seller is in Surat while the applicant who is the purchaser is in Hyderabad. The contention of having faith does not arise in regard to commodity of high value and such belief cannot be kept with goods once sold. b. The receipt of purchases in Surat or the travel, could not be confirmed. c. The applicant has pointed that during the survey these issues we ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s accepted that these are bogus entries, I find no hesitancy to confirm the addition made. This also has been proved by existence of parallel accounts containing cash transactions in the pen drive. In the list, the name of Jewel Diam appears. The accounts in the pen drive have not been disputed by the applicant before the Assessing Officer or before me. Hence, I upheld the addition of ₹ 98,69,902/- as bogus purchases introduced in the books of account . 6. Before us, the Ld. AR vehemently argued by stating that the purchases made by the assessee for ₹ 98,69,702/- is genuine, which is backed by payment made through banking channel and the diamonds were recorded in the stock register of the assessee. Ld. AR further pleaded tha ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... abnormally low taking into account of the nature of business of the assessee. It apparently appears that the assessee has manipulated the accounts to arrive at a lower profit, because it had already declared ₹ 40,45,000/- as its un-accountant income in its return towards excess stock of diamonds found during the survey. In this situation, the books of account and the statement of accounts furnished by the assessee cannot be relied upon. Moreover, there is a categorical finding by the Investigation Department of the Revenue that the assessee had received bogus bills aggregating to ₹ 98,69,702/- towards its purchases wherein the payments were made through banking channels. It is also the finding of the Investigation wing of the Re ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rofit of ₹ 1,33,921/-. Considering these facts and circumstances of the case and the report of the Investigation Department of the Revenue, we are of the considered view that the addition made by the Ld. AO for ₹ 98,69,702/- is justifiable when there is a corroborative evidence from the records maintained by the vendors of the assessee that the purchases made by the assessee is bogus. It is also pertinent to mention that considering the facts and circumstances of the case the decisions cited and relied by the assessee are not relevant. Hence, we hereby confirm the order of the Ld. CIT(A) in the case of assessee. 9. In the result, the appeal of assessee is dismissed. Order pronounced in the open court on the 17th December, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
