9911796707
TMI Blog2022 (8) TMI 847X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... antity wise and quality wise detail were furnished, no original challan or jhangad was produced. The assessee has not established as to how much rough diamond used for manufacturing in diamond. Thus, in view of aforesaid discussion, we do not find any merit for further reducing the addition of disputed purchases shown from alleged hawala/bogus entry provider. - Decided against assessee. - ITA No. 257/SRT/2019 & C.O. No.01/SRT/2019 (a/o ITA No.257/SRT/2019) - - - Dated:- 29-3-2022 - Shri Pawan Singh, Judicial Member And Dr. Arjun Lal Saini, Accountant Member For the Assessee : Shri Mehul Shah, C.A. For the Revenue : Ms Anupama Singla, Sr-DR ORDER UNDER SECTION 254(1) OF INCOME TAX ACT PER PAWAN SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER: 1. This appeal by Revenue and cross objection therein by assessee are directed against the order of ld. Commissioner of Income tax (Appeals)-3, Surat [ CIT(A) for short] dated 14.02.2019 for assessment year (AY) 2009-10. Revenue in its appeal has raised the following grounds of appeal:- 1.Whether, on facts and in law the ld. CIT(A) was justified in partly allowing the appeal of the assessee and estimating disallowance at Rs. 4,12,095 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... resulted in collection of evidence that Bhanwarlal Jain, his sons Rajesh and Manish were operating certain benami concerns in the name of their employees and staff for providing bogus accommodation entries of unsecured loans, sale and purchase of different kinds of material. The statement of Bhanwarlal Jain was recorded under section 132(4) of the Act, wherein he had admitted that his family members are managing various entities which are providing accommodation entries. During the course of search, blank cheque book signed by dummy partners / directors /proprietor of entities were found and seized. Rajendra Jain was asked to explain how the contact the parties from whom the imports have been made in the respective for concerned, he was unable to comment on the same. Rajendra Jain admitted of not having visited any foreign country for purpose of business. Information received during the year, bills have been issue by Rajendra Jain Group only to provide bogus entry of the sales. It was informed that assessee is one of the beneficiaries of bogus purchase form three following entities managed by Bhanwarlal Jain Group. The assessee has shown following purchased from the said parties: ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ing Officer. The ld. CIT(A) after considering the submission of the assessee and referring to the various case laws held that Rajendra Jain Group was not any genuine business and was only indulging in providing bogus entry. The ld. CIT(A) after referring, the decision of Gujarat High Court in M/s Mayank Diamond Pvt. Ltd. vs. ITO (Tax Appeal No. 200 of 2003) dated 17.11.2014, restricted the additions to the extent of 5%. The ld. CIT(A) restricted the addition to the extent of average rate of gross profit in the industry. 3. Aggrieved by the order of ld. CIT(A), the revenue has filed present appeal. On service of notice, assessee has filed its cross objection. On perusal of grounds of appeal raised by revenue, we find that tax effect involved in the present appeal is less than the monetary limit of tax effect of Rs. 50,00,000/- as determined by CBDT in its Circular No. 17/2019. 4. The ld. CIT-Sr. DR fairly submits that tax effect in the present appeal is less than the monetary limit of Rs. 50,00,000/-. Therefore, the appeal of the revenue is not maintainable. The ld. CIT-Sr. DR for the revenue, further submits that she also furnished working of tax effect vide application dated ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... vs. ITO in ITA No. 4154 4155/Mum/2010 dated 28.10.2015. The ld. AR of the assessee further submits that he relied upon all the submission made before the ld. CIT(A). 7. On the other hand, ld. Sr. DR for the revenue supported the order of ld. CIT(A). The ld. Sr. DR submits that though the revenue has filed appeal against deleting 95% addition, however, due to Board Circular, the appeal of revenue is not maintainable as tax effect is below monetary limit for filing appeal before the Tribunal. The ld. Sr.DR submits that ld. CIT(A) order may be confirmed. 8. We have considered the rival submission of the parties and have gone through the orders of authorities below. We have also delivered on various case laws relied by ld. CIT(A) as well as by ld. AR of the assessee. We find that during the assessment, the assessee asked the assessee to provide complete quantity and quality wise details of rough and polished diamond. The Assessing Officer noted that the assessee failed to provide original challan or jhangad as well as complete details of carat wise diamond manufacture and quality wise details. In absence of such details, the Assessing Officer rejected the books of accounts und ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
