9911796707
TMI Blog2021 (5) TMI 762X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 10% on conveyance, telephone and travelling expenses - HELD THAT:- AO in the assessment proceedings had observed that most of the expenses claimed are not verifiable and that the personal element of expenses cannot be ruled out. Accordingly, he proceeded to estimate 10% of the expenses towards personal element and unverifiable nature and made disallowance thereon in the assessment, which was confirmed by the ld. CIT(A) in the first appeal. We find that the ld. CIT(A) had observed that assessee could not prove with any concrete evidence that there was no personal element involved. Even before us, the assessee was not able to justify the same and infact, no arguments were even advanced by the ld. AR before us with regard to said disallowance ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 647/-, whose names appear to be hawala dealers and belonging to Bhanwarlal Jain Group. We find that the ld. AO had stated that during the course of search proceedings in Bhanwarlal Jain group, a statement was recorded u/s.132(4) of the Act wherein it was submitted that the group had indeed given accommodation entries in the form of bogus invoices, among others, to various parties. The ld. AO sought to verify the genuineness of the purchases of the aforesaid two parties by issuing notice u/s.133(6) of the Act. The ld AO observed that both the parties did not respond to the notice issued u/s 133(6) of the Act. We find that the ld. AO had not doubted the sales made by the assessee company out of the aforesaid purchases. We find that assessee a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the statement recorded from Bhanwarlal Jain Group which was heavily relied upon by the ld. AO for making the addition was never supplied to the assessee for its rebuttal. We find that the ld. CIT(A) by placing reliance on the decision of the Hon ble Gujarat High Court in the case of Simit P. Sheth reported in 356 ITR 451, had held that in respect of these type of ingenuine purchases, the assessee would have maximum saved only the VAT portion. Accordingly, the ld. CIT(A) restricted the addition to 3% as against 9% made by the ld. AO. 4. Aggrieved by this action, we find that only assessee is in appeal before us and Revenue has not preferred any appeal before us. 5. We find that this Tribunal going by the gross profit ratio of the asse ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
