9911796707
TMI Blog2023 (11) TMI 32X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act"), dated 30.11.2016. 2. At the outset, Ld. Counsel for the assessee informs the Bench that the appeal filed by the assessee for the assessment year (AY) 2012-13, is barred by limitation by five hundred forty-seven (547) days. The Ld. Counsel explained the delay stating that out of 547 days delay, the two hundred twenty three (223) days delay is attributable to Covid-19 Pandemic. For balance delay of three hundred twenty four (324) days, (547 - 223), the Ld. Counsel submitted the petition for condonation of delay, which is reproduced below: "In respect of the above, I would like to submit that I have filed this appeal on 02.02.2021 under section 253(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rder of Honourable Supreme Court of India MA No.21 of 2022 for the purpose of limitation as may be prescribed under any general and special laws in the respect of all judicial or quasi-judicial proceedings. In view of the above fact, it is clear that is the delay in submission of the appeal is due to good and sufficient reasons, therefore, pray that the delay in filling the appeal should be condoned and the appeal should be treated as filled within the allowed time." 3. On the other hand, learned Senior Departmental Representative (ld. Sr. DR) for the Revenue stated that the assessee has not explained the sufficient reasons for delay, therefore delay should not be condoned. 4. We have heard both the parties on this preliminary issue and ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... purchase made from the concern of Rajendra Jain and others was a make believe arrangement through a series of transfers of unaccounted funds through multi layering to give it a look of a genuine transaction. The very facts remains that the whole arrangement of providing the bogus accommodation entries were established beyond doubt during the search proceedings as no evidence of any sales purchase of diamonds was found neither any stocks of the diamonds was found. These evidences when confronted were admitted u/s 132(4) of the Act by Rajendra Jain and others himself. The income tax proceedings are not governed by the strict rules of evidences and are not required to prove the impossible. In the decision of the Hon'ble ITAT Bench, Surat i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ated the purchase expenses to reduce the profit and hence addition made by the Assessing Officer may be sustained. 8. We have heard both the parties and carefully gone through the submissions put forth on behalf of the assessee. We note that Coordinate Bench of ITAT Surat in more 100 appeals, wherein the similar assessees were beneficiaries of similar bogus purchases, this combination has restricted the similar addition to the extent of 6% of bogus purchases, shown in Rajendra Jain / Bhanwer Lal Jain cases groups vide judgment, in the case of Pankaj K. Choudhary (in ITA No.1152/AHD/2017), dated 27.09.2021 wherein the Tribunal sustained the addition at the rate of 6% of bogus purchases. We find that Ld.CIT(A) has sustained the addition at t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
