9911796707
TMI Blog2022 (4) TMI 153X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nds inter alia that; ITA No. 1732/M/2021 (Assessee's appeal) "1. In the facts and Circumstances of the case and in law, the learned CIT(A) erred in upholding the action of the Assessing Officer of completing the assessment without providing a copy of the documents relied upon by the Assessing Officer thereby violating the law laid down by Honorable Supreme Court in the case of Kishanchand Chellaram vs. CIT (1980) 125 ITR 713 and Andaman Timber Industries vs. Commissioner of Central Excise (Civil Appeal No. 4228 of 2006.) 2. In the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the learned CIT(A) has erred in sustaining the addition of Rs. 9,65,425/- being 25% of alleged bogus purchases of Rs. 38,61,698/-. 3. The appellant craves leave to add, alter, delete or modify all or any of the above grounds of appeal. All the above grounds are without prejudice to each other." ITA No. 1733/M/2021 (Assessee's appeal) "1. In the facts and Circumstances of the case and in law, the learned CIT(A) erred in upholding the action of learned Assessing Officer in issuing the penalty show cause notice in standard proforma without striking off the inapplicable charge in the said not ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Ld. CIT(A) has erred in not appreciating the fact that the assessee could not establish the genuineness of the purchases from the non-existent vendors as per information received from Law enforcement agency of State Govt. of Maharashtra i.e. Sales Tax Department, and established by the Assessing Officer. 2. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in not appreciating the fact that the onus to justify the claim of expenses is on the assessee and the same has failed to discharge it in relation to the purchases made from the non-existent vendors. 3. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in not appreciating the law correctly that once the purchases are unverifiable/not genuine/bogus, the same should have been disallowed in entirety, particularly in view of the ratio of the decision of the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in Tax Appeal No. 242 of 2003 dated 20/06/2016 in the case of N.K. Proteins Ltd. against which the SLP was dismissed by the Hon'ble Apex Court. 5. It is humbly requested that present appeal is being filed in accordance with the CBDT's Instruction No. 3/2018 date ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ,65,425/- out of the total purchases of Rs. 38,61,698/- has added to the income of the assessee. It is also not in dispute that gross profit earned by the assessee during preceding as well as subsequent years was on average 11.2% during 2007-08 to 2010-11 which is as under: A.Y. Turnover Gross Profit G.P. % Net Profit NP% 2007-08 82,73,567/- 11,43,965/- 13.83% 3,05,669/- 3.69% 2008-09 95,38,933/- 11,96,573/- 12.54% 3,00,710/- 3.15% 2009-10 98,50,047/- 9,42,778/- 9.57% 3:34,312/- 3.39% 2009-10 98,50,047/- (Including alleged bogus purchases of Rs. 38,61, 698/-) 48,04,476/- 48.77% 41,96,010/- 42.60% 2010-11 1,1 0,59,213/- 11,21,573/- 10.14% 3,98,407/- 3.60% 7. In the backdrop of the aforesaid undisputed facts the Ld. A.R. for the assessee contended that when consequent sales made by the assessee during the year under assessment have not been disputed by the AO as well as the Ld. CIT(A) addition to the tune of 25% of the bogus purchases is not sustainable and relied upon the decision rendered by Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of Principal Commissioner of Income Tax vs. M/s. Mohommad Haji Adam & Co. in I ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sessment framed under section 143(3) read with section 147 of the Act at the total income of Rs. 41,09,458/- by way of making addition of Rs. 38,61,698/- on account of bogus purchases made by the assessee having been taken from hawala entry providers, proceeding under section 271(1)(c) of the Act have been initiated. Declining the contentions raised by the assessee the AO proceeded to levy the penalty to the tune of Rs. 1,27,91,012/- @ 100% of the tax sought to be evaded. 12. The assessee carried the matter before the Ld. CIT(A) by way of filing the appeal who has partly allowed the same by restricting the penalty to the tune of Rs. 9,65,425/- i.e. being the addition made by the Ld. CIT(A) in appeal @ 25% of the total bogus purchases by partly allowing the appeal. 13. Feeling aggrieved from the impugned order both assessee as well as Revenue have come up before the Tribunal by way of filing the present cross appeals. 14. Undisputedly, initially the AO has made addition of Rs. 38,61,698/- on the total amount of alleged bogus purchases made by the assessee during the year under assessment. It is also not in dispute that addition made by the AO has been restricted by the Ld. CIT(A) ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
