9911796707
TMI Blog2022 (8) TMI 1289X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ot fully verifiable or the mode of payment or physical delivery is doubted, only profit element of such transaction may be disallowed to avoid the possibility of revenue leakage of such transaction. As we have already taken a view that transaction through undisclosed bank accounts is the subject matter of appeal which is still to be adjudicated Facts remained the same that the time and manner of certain payment against the purchases of material is not far from doubt. Therefore, we deem it appropriate to disturb the book result of the assessee and to avoid the possibility of revenue leakage the net profit (NP) ratio of assessee is estimated @ 6 % of turnover in place of 3.98% as declared by assessee. In the result, the grounds of appeal r ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... o condone the delay as the delay in filing the appeal was neither intentional or deliberate and that the assessee has good case on merit and may succeed if the appeal is heard on merit. 3. On the other hand, the ld senior departmental representative (DR) for the revenue has not opposed the plea of assessee in seeking the condonation of delay in filing appeal and submitted that the bench may take decision in accordance with law. 4. We have considered the contentions of the ld representative of the party on the plea of condonation of delay in filing appeal. Considering the facts that when the impugned order was passed on 22.03.2021, the nation was facing second wave of Covid-19 pandemic. The assessee is senior citizen and there is no in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 0/- 2 Kinnari Sea Foods 3,66,155/- 3 Noorani Health Products 41,315/- 4 Kureshi Suppliers 5,85,410/- Total 17,92,880/- 6. The assessee was asked to furnish bills/vouchers of purchases. The Assessing Officer recorded that no details were furnished. The Assessing Officer issued show cause notice as to why aggregate of purchases of Rs. 17,92,880/- should not be treated as bogus purchases. The assessee in response to such show cause notice, filed her reply and stated that she has purchases various items from unregiste ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of same amount is added in his total income. The same amount cannot be taxed twice. The addition of supplier/Prajesh Parmar was also made by same Assessing Officer. Based on aforesaid submission, the assessee prayed to delete the entire addition. 8. The NFAC/Ld.CIT(A) after considering the submission of assessee has held that the assessee has shown purchases from unregistered dealer. Son of assessee (Prajesh Parmar) opened account with his own bank in the name of purchaser party and presented cheques for encashment. Such acts were made only to avoid the payment of tax and upheld the entire addition. Further aggrieved, the assessee has filed the present appeal before this Tribunal. 9. We have heard the submissions of the Ld. A.R of the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ssing officer asked the assessee that payments made by assessee against the purchases shown by the assessee from four party was made at the end of financial year as recorded in para-6 of the assessment order. The assessee on receipt of the reply of the assessee that such purchases were made from unregistered dealers, made further inquiry and find that such payment was made by assessee to her own son, who had opened different bank account in the name of four different parties. The assessing officer treated all four entity as fictitious and disallowed aggregate payment of such expenses. The ld DR for the revenue submits that the assessing officer has brought sufficient adverse evidence on record for making such disallowances. 11. We have c ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of the fact that the additions made in the assessment of related party (Prajeshsinh I Parmar) are subject matter of appeal before ld CIT(A). Thus, we are restraining ourselves on making any observation on such transaction conducted through the impugned bank accounts. 12. Now adverting to other submissions of the ld AR for the assessee that the sales of the assessee is not disputed and that mere certain payments were made at the end of financial year to the related party cannot be doubted unless the assessing officer find such payment as unreasonable. And that the assessee has shown gross profit @ 27.8% and net profit @ 3.98% on the turnover of Rs. 3.2 Crore. We find that the assessing officer neither doubted the sale of the assessee nor ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
