9911796707
TMI Blog2021 (12) TMI 1193X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the Revenue pertaining to assessment year(s) 2014-15 and 2008-09, are directed against the separate orders passed by the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeals)-1 [Ld.CIT(A)], Surat, all dated 07.02.2019, which in turn arise out of separate assessment order(s) passed by the Assessing Officer under section 143(3) r.w.s 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the Act ),dated 23.12.2016and 21.03.2016 respectively. 2.Since, the issues involved in all the appeals are common and identical except variance of amount; therefore, these appeals have been heard together and are being disposed of by this consolidated order. For the sake of convenience, the grounds as well as the facts narrated inITA No.263/SRT/2018, for asses ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... cer and furnished the details called for. During the course of assessment proceedings, assessee filed other relevant documents along with return of income. The assessing officer noted that assessee has shown gross profit (GP) of ₹ 3,97,82,762/- @ 1.91% and net profit of ₹ 5,67,166/- @ 0.03% on total turnover of ₹ 207,93,27,931/-. During the year under consideration, assessee has furnished details of party-wise from whom diamonds have been purchased. On verification of the same, it wasnoticed by the assessing officer that following concerns are belongs to Shri Gautam Jain group and assessee Bhagchand Jain HUF and received accommodation entries, which are reproduced below:- Sr.No Name of th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hat I am running three paper based companies with no real business activities at all. 5.Considering these facts, assessing officer has rejected the books of accounts of assessee under section 145(2) of the Act and made additions in respect of bogus purchases to the tune of ₹ 4,19,00,541/-, under section 69C of the Act 6.Aggrieved by the order of the Assessing Officer, the assessee carried the matter in appeal before Ld. CIT(A) who has partly allowed the appeal of the assessee. The Id. CIT(A) following his own decision in case of Gangani Impex for A.Y. 2013-14 in appeal No. CAS-3/512/2C15-16 dated 24.11.2016 which was further followed by decision of ITAT in case of Mayank Diamond Pvt, Ltd reported in 2014(11) TMI 812 (Guj) in Ta ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... anwarlal Jain no stock of goods/ material was found to the investigation party. Bhanwarlal Jain while filing return of income has offered commission income (entry provider). Before us, the ld CIT-DR for the revenue vehemently submitted that the ratio of decision of Hon ble Gujarat High Court in Mayank Diamond Private Limited (supra) is directly applicable on the facts of the present case. We find that in Mayank Diamonds the Hon ble High Court restricted the additions to 5% of GP. We have seen that in Mayank Diamonds Pvt. Ltd (supra), the assessee had declared GP @ 1.03% on turnover of ₹ 1.86 Crore. The disputed transaction in the said case was ₹ 1.68 Crore. However, in the present case the assessee has declared the GP @ 0.78%. I ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
