9911796707
TMI Blog2021 (6) TMI 163X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... : Shri T. S. Khalsa (DR) ORDER PER AMARJIT SINGH, JM: The assessee has filed the above mentioned appeals against the order dated 22.02.2019 passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-3, Thane [hereinafter referred to as the CIT(A) ] relevant to the A.Ys. 2009-10 2010-11. ITA. NO.3208/M/2019 2. The assessee has filed the present appeal against the order dated 22.02.2019 passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-3, Mumbai [hereinafter referred to as the CIT(A) ] relevant to the A.Y. 2009-10. 3. The assessee has raised the following grounds: - 1. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Honorable Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) was not justified in hold ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 7 Jigan Enterprises 8,69,564 8 Parshva Co 17,49,485 9 Dhruv Sales Corporation 1,89,293 Total ₹ 49,72,735 Thereafter, notice u/s 148 of the Act was issued and served upon the assessee. Notices u/s 143(2) 142(1) were issued and served upon the assessee. After the reply of the assessee, the AO raised the addition to the extent of 49,72,735/- i.e. 100% of the bogus purchase and the total income of the assessee was assessed to the tune of ₹ 58,85,440/-. Feeling aggrieved, the assessee filed an appeal be ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... not elicit satisfactory response. Therefore, it was a fit case for estimation of additions on these suspicious purchases. In our considered opinion, Ld. CIT(A) has clinched the issue in the correct perspective. The estimation of 12.5% was quiet fair and reasonable and the same do not require any interference on our part. Therefore, by confirming the stand of Ld. CIT(A), we dismiss the appeal. 7. Facts as well as issues are pari-materia the same in AY 2010-11 wherein the assessee was saddled with additions of ₹ 96.98 Lacs on account of suspicious purchases. The Ld. CIT(A) restricted the same to 12.5% applying similar reasoning and logic. Aggrieved, the revenue is in further appeal before us with identical grounds. Since, the fac ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... try from the following nine parties read as under.:- S. No. Name of the Entry Provider amount in the bills taken by the assessee Amount of bill taken by the assessee 1 Shubhlaxmi Sales Corp. ₹ 11,78,050 2 Amar Enterprises ₹ 15,50,411 3 Jigan Enterprises ₹ 60,818 4 Mercury Enterprises ₹ 16,12,352 5 Nikhil Enterprises ₹ 35,336 6 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... herefore, the present appeal is liable to be dismissed. The copy of order dated 03.02.2021 is on the file in which the relevant finding is hereby reproduced as under.:- 6. After due consideration of factual matrix as enumerated in the preceding paragraphs, it is quite evident that the assessee was engaged in the business of civil construction which would require consumption of material. The purchase transactions carried out by the assessee with suspicious suppliers were evidenced by copies of invoices and the payments were through banking channels. The confirmation of accounts as well as PAN of the suppliers was duly furnished. The sales turnover achieved by the assessee was not disputed by Ld. AO. At the same time, the assessee fail ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
