2017 (6) TMI 1370

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ified in restricting the disallowance to 8% of the alleged bogus purchases. Accordingly I uphold the order passed by Ld CIT(A) on this issue. Appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed.
Shri B.R. Baskaran (AM) Assessee by : Shri Jitendra Singh Department by : Shri Kumar Sanjay ORDER The appeal filed by the revenue is directed against the order dated 25.01.2017 passed by Ld CIT(A)-44, Mumbai and it relates to the assessment year 2011-12. The revenue is aggrieved by the decision of Ld CIT(A) in granting partial relief to the assessee in respect of addition relating to alleged bogus purchases. 2. I heard the parties and perused the record. The assessee is engaged in the business of supplying building materials. The AO received informatio .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... h he had formed his opinion were- 1. The assessee was not able to submit any lorry receipts or any details regarding transportation of goods. 2. The suppliers from whom the disputed purchases have been made are included in the list of havvala operators prepared by the Sales Tax Department. 3. The suppliers from whom the disputed purchases have been made, were not produced before the AO. 4. The suppliers from whom the disputed purchases have been made, did not comply to notice u/s 133(6) of the Act. 4.4 The appellant is a supplier. The AO in his order has dealt exclusively with the purchases of the appellant. However, in the case of a supplier, if there are no purchases of materials there cannot be any sales also. The AO had disall .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ld have been made only to the extent of gross profit. To this extent I am in agreement with the appellant that if the appellant has fulfilled his onus of making the payments by banking channels and has supplied the address of the sellers, then it cannot be presumed that the sellers were bogus simply because the sellers were not found at the given addresses. However, at the same time it cannot be said that the information provided by the sales tax department should not be taken cognizance of by the A.O. Therefore, after considering the totality of facts and after following the ratio of Saraswathi Oil Traders vs. CIT(SC) cited supra, I am of an opinion that it is the profit element on the total component in dispute which needs to be added to .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X