9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (4) TMI 190X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sed this contention that Shri Rajesh Doshi was neither an employee nor a partner and that the assessee had not transacted with the said person before the Hon ble Settlement Commission and the fact that Shri Rajesh Doshi has also not denied the transaction between him and the assessee. The assessee has failed to rebut the said statement of Shri Rajesh Doshi by any documentary evidence neither before the lower authorities nor before us. Thus no infirmity in the order of the ld. CIT(A) in making an addition on the gross profit margin @ 12.5% on the alleged bogus purchase where the sales are not in dispute. Decided against assessee and revenue. On-money received - unaccounted income from sale of flats along with the modus operandi of receiving ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... for short), National Faceless Appeal Centre ( NFAC for short) passed u/s.250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 2. As there was no representation on behalf of the assessee, we hereby dispose of this appeal by hearing the learned Departmental Representative ('ld.DR' for short) and on perusal of the materials available on record by passing a consolidated order in these appeals which are on identical facts by taking ITA No. 2781/Mum/2023 and 3590/Mum/2023 for A.Y. 2014-15 as a lead case. ITA Nos. 2781/Mum/2023 and 3590/Mum/2023 (A.Y. 2014-15) 3. The grounds of appeal raised by the assessee pertains to the addition @ 12.5% made on bogus purchases in which the Revenue is also in appeal against the order of the ld. CIT(A) in restricting the add ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ion. 8. The ld. CIT(A) had partly allowed the assessee s appeal by restricting the bogus purchases to 12.5% on the gross profit margin and by deleting the addition towards on money received by the assessee on the ground that the Hon ble Settlement Commission had in assessee s related concerns disregarded the seized material, documents and the statements recorded which are also the basis in the assessee s case. 9. Both the assessee as well as the Revenue are in appeal before us challenging the order of the ld. CIT(A). 10. We would first take up the ground challenging the addition made on alleged bogus purchases by the assessee. The facts of these grounds are that the ld. A.O. observed that from 4 GB pen drive seized from the residential prem ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 2012-13 in the case of M/s. Strawberry Construction Pvt. Ltd. which was the sister concern of the assessee where the Hon ble Settlement Commission held that the evidence seized from the residential premises of Shri Daxesh Parmar was prima facie ambiguous and not corroborated with documentary evidences and had discarded the said evidences vide order dated 20.08.2014 passed u/s. 245D(4) of the Act. The assessee also contended that even in the case of Bharat Shah Group for A.Y. 2007-08 where the ld. A.O. had reopened based on the materials seized from the premises of Shri Daxesh Parmar which was held to be unrelatable thereby quashing the reassessment proceeding. The assessee also opposed to the reliance placed on the statement of Shri Rajesh ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... value of the statement of Shri Rajesh Doshi who has admitted to the modus operandi of availing bogus purchase bill. It is also pertinent to point out that the assessee has not raised this contention that Shri Rajesh Doshi was neither an employee nor a partner and that the assessee had not transacted with the said person before the Hon ble Settlement Commission and the fact that Shri Rajesh Doshi has also not denied the transaction between him and the assessee. The assessee has failed to rebut the said statement of Shri Rajesh Doshi by any documentary evidence neither before the lower authorities nor before us. In the absence of any such contradictory evidences, we do not find any infirmity in the order of the ld. CIT(A) in making an additi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he ld. A.O. during the search and seizure action and further stated that the remand report sought for by the ld. CIT(A) could not be produced for the reason that the assessee has failed to co-operate with the proceedings. 16. After hearing the ld. DR and on perusal of the materials available on record, it is observed that the assessment order has not specified any details as to what was the seized material that was available before the ld. A.O. It is also pertinent to point out that the remand report sought for by the ld. CIT(A) was also not furnished by the ld. A.O. for the reason that the assessee has failed to co-operate. We also have observed that the retracted statement of Shri Daxesh Parmar, Shri Rajesh Doshi was also not in record fo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
