9911796707
TMI Blog2021 (1) TMI 1017X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he impugned order on the following grounds of appeal before us : "1. On the fact s and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in deleting the addition made in respect of bogus purchases especially when Ld. CIT(A) clearly found that the assessee did not substantiate the claim of genuine purchases. 2. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in determining the profit percentage at the rat e of the bogus purchases while the assessee had failed to establish the genuineness it self of the purchases claimed. 3. The appellant prays that the order of the Ld. CIT(A) on the above grounds be set aside and that of the Assessing Officer be restored. 4. The appellant craves leav ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 7. Navdeep Trading Corporation 24,17,905/- 8. Grifton India Ridhi Enterprise 37,11,809/- 9. Siddhi Enterprises 16,87,140/- 10. Ghatalia Steels 38,32,820/- 11. Ashirwad Expo 23,78,202/- Total 2,60,02,507/- It was further observed by the A.O that purchases relatable to 5 parties (out of 11 parties), viz. Manav Impex (Sr. No. 2), Navdeep Trading Corpn. (Sr. No. 7), Siddi Enterprises (Sr. No. 9), Ghatalia Sales (Sr. No. 10) and Ashirwad Exp (Sr. No. 11) were already considered by his predecessor while framing the regular assessment vide his order passed u/s 143(3), dated 23.12.2011 and an addition @1% of the turnover was made. Accordingly, the A.O confining himself to the purchases aggregating to Rs. 1,21,34,099/- claim ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he CIT(A) relying on the order passed by his predecessor in the case of the assessee for A.Y 2010-11 restricted the addition to 4% of the value of the impugned purchases under consideration. Accordingly, the CIT(A) scaled down the disallowance of the entire value of purchases of Rs. 1,21,34,099/- made by the A.O to an amount of Rs. 4,85,364/- (i.e 4% of Rs. 1,21,34,099/-). 5. The revenue being aggrieved with the order of the CIT(A) has carried the matter in appeal before us. It was submitted by the ld. Departmental Representative (for short "D.R") that the CIT(A) had erred in dislodging the disallowance made by the A.O and substituting the same by an amount of Rs. 4,85,364/-. It was averred by the ld. D.R that the reliance placed by the CI ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... (copy placed on record). It was thus submitted by the ld. A.R that as no infirmity did emerge from the order of the CIT(A), therefore, the appeal filed by the revenue being devoid and bereft of any merit was liable to be dismissed. 7. We have heard the authorised representatives for both the parties, perused the orders of the lower authorities and the material available on record. Admittedly, the assessee in the course of the proceedings before the lower authorities had failed to substantiate the genuineness and veracity of the impugned purchases claimed by the assessee to have been made from the aforementioned 6 parties. On being called upon by the A.O to produce the purchase and sale bills/invoices pertaining to the aforesaid impugned tr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... es had either found its way as a part of the accounted sales or formed part of the closing stock of the assessee for the year under consideration the addition would be restricted only to the extent the assessee would had benefited from procuring the goods at a discounted value from such unidentified suppliers operating in the open/grey market as against the value booked by it in its books of accounts. However, we find, that in the present case before us it is a matter of fact borne from the records that the assessee had failed to prove that the purchases claimed by the assessee to have been made from the aforementioned parties had either found its way as a part of the accounted sales or formed part of the closing stock of the assessee for t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sight of the aforesaid material fact. In the backdrop of the aforesaid factual matrix we are unable to persuade ourselves to subscribe to the scaling down of the disallowance of the entire value of the impugned purchases made by the A.O to 4% of the value of such purchases by the CIT(A). At the same time, we also cannot remain oblivious of the fact that the assessee had failed to prove that the impugned purchases were either accounted for in its sales or formed part of its closing stock for the year under consideration, for the reason, that the relevant documentary evidence had been impounded by the Sales tax department in the course of an action conducted on the assessee, and thus, were not available with the assessee. In the backdrop of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
