9911796707
TMI Blog2021 (7) TMI 1223X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... l supply of goods, which had ultimately triggered the reopening of assessment in the case of the assessee. CIT(A) had observed that from the information so received, the assessee's name appeared in the list of beneficiaries who had taken accommodation entries. Obviously this would result in formation of belief in the mind of the AO that income of the assessee had escaped the assessment as the said information constituted tangible material. We find that the Ld. CIT(A) had also placed reliance on the decision of the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in the case of Peass Industrial Engineers Pvt. Ltd.[ 2016 (8) TMI 280 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT] in support of its contentions, while upholding the validity of reopening. Hence, we do not find any ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 7, CIT(A)-41/IT/123/16-17 CIT(A)-41/IT/522/16-17 dated 31/08/2019 (Ld. CIT(A) in short) against the order of assessment passed u/s. 143(3) r.w.s. 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as Act) dated 31/08/2016 by the Ld. Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax-30(1), Mumbai (hereinafter referred to as Ld. AO). 2. At the outset, the notice sent by the Registry to the address mentioned by the assessee in Form No. 36 was returned unserved with the remark left by the postal authorities. The assessee had not intimated its revised address to this Tribunal. These appeals have been listed for hearing on 26/04/2021, 03/06/2021 and 15/07/2021. On all these dates, no presence was made on behalf of the assessee. Since, the notice of hea ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... se to notice u/s. 148 of the Act. The reasons recorded for reopening the assessment were also provided to the assessee. The Ld. AO observed that assessee is one of the beneficiaries operated and controlled by Shri Sanjay Choudhary group. Based on the information gathered from DGIT (Investigation) Mumbai that Sanjay Choudhary group persons had floated various companies which are engaged in the business of providing accommodation entries in the form of bogus unsecured loans, bogus purchases, bogus capital gains and since assessee also was one of the beneficiaries by obtaining bogus purchases to the tune of ₹ 5,16,21,489/-, the assessment was validly reopened in the case of the assessee. Admittedly this information was obtained by the Ld ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ₹ 5,16,21,489/- as under:- AADI - ₹ 2,18,77,866/- KALASH - ₹ 2,46,99,937/- SPARSH - ₹ 50,43,686/- TOTAL ₹ 5,16,21,489/- 5.2. During the course of assessment proceedings, assessee was asked to prove the genuineness of the purchases made from aforesaid parties. The assessee merely replied that purchases made from aforesaid parties have been duly accounted for its books of accounts and the payments for the same have been made by account payee cheques. The Ld. AO issued summons u/s. 131 of the Act on 29/02/2016 to all the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... would be just and fair to bring to tax only profit element embedded in the value of such disputed purchases. We find based on the report of the task group for diamond sector published by the Government of India, Ministry of Commerce and Industry, in this regard, wherein the benign/presumptive taxation threshold was set at 2.5%. We hold that profit percentage embedded in the value of disputed purchases estimated at 2.5% thereon, would meet the ends of justice. The Ld. AO is directed accordingly. 6. The decision rendered for A.Y. 2013-14 would apply with equal force for A.Y. 2014-15 also, in view of identical facts except with variance in figures. 7. Accordingly, the ground No. 2 raised by the assessee for both the years is partly allo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
