9911796707
TMI Blog2022 (11) TMI 480X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n would be impossible to complete and as a necessary corollary, unless the corresponding sale is held to be bogus, the purchase also cannot be held to be bogus, rather it would be a case of purchase from bogus entities/parties. That view has been upheld by the Tribunal in principal while dismissing the appeal of the Revenue. In view of the above, we are of the opinion that the questions of law proposed as (a), (b), and (c) in the appeal cannot be said to be substantial questions of law. GP estimation - Tribunal has not addressed the issue of adopting the gross profit rate of 5% on the alleged Hawala purchase as against the rate of 0.69% declared by the assessee, despite the fact that the CIT (Appeals) had specifically gone into that qu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... oceedings? b. Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, the ITAT was justified in directing the A.O. to delete the addition made on account of bogus purchase ignoring the fact that the absolute burden of proof to substantiate/confirm the veracity of the impugned purchases was cast on the assesse, which was not discharged by cogent, relevant and reliable evidence, during the course of the assessment proceedings? c. Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the ITAT was justified in directing the A.O. to delete the addition made on account of bogus purchase ignoring the fact that the parties from whom the impugned purchases were claimed to be made were not available on their given addresses and further ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... wala dealers/parties. 5. An appeal was preferred by the assessee before the CIT (Appeals). The appeal was allowed inter alia on the ground that the A.O. having not disputed the sales, it was not a case of bogus purchases and that it was at best a case of inflated purchases. The CIT (Appeals), however, was of the opinion that the gross profit shown by the assessee at 0.69% was very low in that particular kind of trade and, therefore, estimated the gross profit at 5% and further directed the A.O. to make an addition in the gross profit ratio and delete the balance addition made. 6. Both the Revenue as also the assessee preferred appeals against the order passed by the CIT (Appeals), whereas the Revenue in its appeal challenged the delet ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... by way of sale, unless it could be shown from the record that the corresponding sale was also a sham transaction. We are in agreement with the view expressed by the CIT (Appeals) that, if the purchases are bogus, it would be impossible for the assessee to complete the business transaction and that if the purchase is bogus, the corresponding sale also must be bogus or else the transaction would be impossible to complete and as a necessary corollary, unless the corresponding sale is held to be bogus, the purchase also cannot be held to be bogus, rather it would be a case of purchase from bogus entities/parties. That view has been upheld by the Tribunal in principal while dismissing the appeal of the Revenue. In view of the above, we are of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
