9911796707
TMI Blog2021 (4) TMI 231X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tain a part of the addition by taking recourse to the methodology adopted in the assessee s case in an earlier AY i.e. 2006-2007. In that AY, concededly, addition had been made to the assessee s gross income by applying a GP rate of 5%. It is the same methodology that the CIT(A) has adopted and, accordingly, sustained the addition. Therefore, in our view, given the findings of fact returned by the CIT(A), which have been sustained by the Tribunal, no interference is called for. No substantial question of law. - ITA 103/2021, CM APPLs. 12292-93/2021 - - - Dated:- 26-3-2021 - HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SHAKDHER AND HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE TALWANT SINGH Appellant Through: Ms. Vibhooti Malhotra, Advocate. Respondent Through ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 531/- from the concerns, purportedly, controlled by Mr. Navneet Jain and Mr. Vaibhav Jain, who according to the revenue, had provided accommodation entries to the assessee. (iii) The AO had issued notices under Section 133(6) of the Act to all the 24 parties out of which only one party had responded. None of this information was furnished to the assessee and he was not confronted with the information received from the party which responded to the summons. The investigation was, accordingly, held to be half-baked . (iv) Taking forward the conclusion that the investigation was half-baked, it was observed that the purchases may have been made from the open market and, therefore, the purchase bills could have been provided by the so ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . 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 was not confronted with the material and, therefore, in our view, the assessment order was clearly in jeopardy. 10. However, what the CIT(A) did, [which, in the given circumstances, insofar as the revenue is concerned, was the best way forward] is to sustain a part of the addition by taking recourse to the methodology adopted in the assessee s case in an earlier AY i.e. 2006-2007. In that AY, concededly, addition had been m ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
