9911796707
TMI Blog2022 (8) TMI 942X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d or fixed benchmark of such estimate disturbing sales, we disagree with that because some profit has already been offered by assessee by showing sales. Further, 6.5% of profit in Imitation Jewellery business also cannot be said either too low or unreasonable. In view of this, the order of the learned CIT (A) is upheld. Accordingly, Ground nos. 1 to 3, are dismissed. - ITA Nos. 939 to 941/Mum/2022 - - - Dated:- 27-7-2022 - SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI , AM AND SHRI KULDIP SINGH , JM Assessee by : None Revenue by : Shri Vranda U Matkari , DR ORDER PER BENCH : 01. These are the three appeals filed by the Income Tax Officer, Ward 22(3)(1), Mumbai (the learned Assessing Officer) in case of Vikas Manohar Bafna for A.Ys. 2009 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... did not even produce the stock register and, therefore, purchases in quantitative terms were never tallied with sales and, therefore, it was possible for the assessee to inflate the purchases by the complete amount in bogus purchase bills. 3 And without prejudice to the ground No. (i) (ii), whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld CIT(A) has erred in not going into the source of purchases outside the books while restricting the disallowance to 6.5% of accommodation entries of bogus purchase bills as against addition of 100% on total bogus purchase by A.O. after having upheld that the impugned purchases were from entry providers which implied by means that the corresponding purchases were made fro ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of the parties but did not furnish purchase invoices, bank statements, stock register, transportation receipts and delivery challans to substantiate the purchases. The show cause notice was issued on 5th March, 2014, which was not responded to and therefore, the learned Assessing Officer made an addition of ₹. 27,25,493/- of the bogus purchases. During the course of assessment proceedings, it was also found that assessee has made payment of ₹. 19,02,900/- in violation of the provision of Section 40(A)(3) of the Act in excess of ₹. 20,000/- and therefore, same was also added. 07. The total income was computed at ₹. 56,25,840/- by passing an order under Section 143(3) read with section 147 of the Act on 19th March, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ns of the learned Departmental Representative and the orders of the lower authorities. 012. The fact shows that assessee is an individual, obtained the purchase bills from three different parties amounting to ₹. 27,25,493/-. These parties have admitted that they have not supplied the goods, therefore, the only issue is that in this circumstances whether 100% of the purchases should be added as income of the assessee or merely the profit embedded therein is the income. The learned CIT (A) relying on the decision of Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in case of CIT vs. Smith P Seth 356 ITR 451, wherein, it has been held that once the sale is accepted, the purchases cannot be questioned and entire purchases cannot be added but only profit ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
