9911796707
TMI Blog2021 (6) TMI 314X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ddition on estimate basis. In our considered view, the findings of the ld. CIT(A) are well reasoned and in accordance with the settled principles of law. We further notice that the facts of the case relied upon by the revenue are different from the facts of the present case. Hence, we do not find merit in the contention of the revenue. We accordingly dismissed the appeal filed by the revenue and uphold the findings of the ld. CIT(A). - Decided against revenue. X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... cting the assessing officer to restrict the disallowance to 12.5% as against 25% of the total alleged bogus purchases disallowed by the AO, without appreciating the fact that the said seller parties were found to be Hawala operators/ bogus billers as per findings given by the Sales Tax Department, Govt. of Maharashtra and the Investigation Wing, Income Tax Department, Mumbai and the AO had made a reasonable disallowance. 2. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in restricting the addition of ₹ 25,15,243/- made by the AO @ 25% on account of bogus purchases to only 12.5% of such bogus purchases, without giving any findings as to how 12.5% has been worked out and also ignoring that the asses ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... restricted the addition to 12.5% of the total amount of bogus purchases shown by the assessee ignoring that the assessee had failed to discharge the onus of establishing the genuineness of the transaction. The ld. counsel further submitted that since the findings of the Ld. CIT(A) are not in accordance with the law laid down by the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in the case of N K Protiens Ltd., the same is liable to be set aside. 7. We have perused the material on record. The only grievance of the revenue is that the ld. CIT(A) has restricted the addition to 12.5% of the total amount of bogus purchases shown by the assessee as against 25% addition made by the AO. The ld. CIT(A) has restricted the addition to 12.5% of the total amount of bogu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... though the AO could not prove substantively that the amounts given to the sellers in cheque from have came back to the appellant, the activities of accommodation entries in the trading community is not unheared of. Further, the investigations carried out by the Sales Tax Department, another Government Agency, with regard to VAT violation cannot be lost sight of. Further, as some of the names of the so-called bogus sellers out of the list supplied by the Sales Tax Department are appearing in the books of the appellant company, the link of involvement of appellant company getting bogus bills is established. Even though there are catena of cases decided the issue in favour of the assessee, they are not uniform in all the cases as they were ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
