9911796707
TMI Blog2021 (4) TMI 231X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... gh: None. O R D E R CM APPLs. 12292/2021 and 12293/2021 1. Allowed, subject to just exceptions. ITA 103/2021 2. This is an appeal preferred by the revenue under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [in short 'the Act'] against the order and judgment of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal [in short 'Tribunal'] dated 18.12.2019 passed in ITA No. 4470/Del/2016 concerning the assessment year [i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Rs. 19,14,17,308/-, as reflected in its profit and loss account. These purchases were made, according to the assessee, from 24 parties. Out of the total purchases amounting to Rs. 19,14,17,308/-, the assessee had made purchases to the tune of Rs. 17,04,09,531/- from the concerns, purportedly, controlled by Mr. Navneet Jain and Mr. Vaibhav Jain, who according to the revenue, had provided accommodat ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on was made to the assessee's taxable income by adopting the measure that 5% gross profit [in short 'GP'] would be reasonable addition, an addition to the assessee's taxable income for the assessment year under consideration, was sustained to the extent of Rs. 71,55,837/-. 6. The revenue, being aggrieved by the decision rendered by the CIT(A), carried the matter in appeal. The Tribunal, however, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... irly, concedes that there is no reference to the provisions of Section 69C of the Act. Therefore, this argument is not available to the revenue. 9. Apart from anything else, what is not disputed before us is that the issuance of summons to the parties who had provided so-called bogus purchase bills and the receipt of information from one such party, was not put to the assessee. 9.1. The assessee ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
