9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (4) TMI 1074X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ndred percent or the addition is subsumed in net profit rate already assessed in first reopening assessment? HELD THAT:- It is an established principle that in case of such bogus purchases only profit embedded there in should be charged to tax if such purchases have resulted into sales. In this case the alleged bogus purchases are only Rs. 11,58,195 whereas the already sustained addition is of 5,047,947/ . Thus, according to us the learned CIT A is correct in not making any further addition to the total income of the assessee on account of alleged bogus purchases of 1,158,195/ for which the impugned reassessment order is passed. Accordingly we confirm the order of the learned CIT A. Accordingly, both the grounds raised by the learned assess ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... onus to establish the genuineness of the purchases?" 03. brief facts of the case shows that assessee is an individual engaged in the business as the civil contractor working on various projects of MCGM, government and semi government bodies, filed return of income on 29/9/2009 declaring a total income of Rs. 4,865,060/- which was assessed under section 143 (3) on 7/12/2011 at the same income. Subsequently the case was reopened and reassessment was completed under section 143 (3) read with section 147 of the act on 17/2/2014 at the total income of Rs. 21,813,413/-. 04. Subsequently the assessment was once again reopened by issue of notice under section 148 on 27/1/2016. The assessee responded by letter dated 8/2/2016 requesting to consider ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e principal stop therefore the total consumption of the quantities are certified. The material is also procured from various sources such as brokers agents and suppliers directly also. Assessee also relied upon several judicial precedents. 06. The learned AO after considering the explanation of the assessee rejected it for the reason that assessee has failed to substantiate the claim of purchases made from the aforesaid party with any credible and corroborative evidence. The facts clearly emerges that in the facts and circumstances of the case the assessee had failed to discharge the onus of proving the purchase transaction shown by them with the aforesaid party. Accordingly the learned assessing officer applied provisions of section 69C o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ade on account of bogus purchases only. The learned assessing officer made an addition of ₹ 16,948,368/- in that proceedings. The learned CIT - A computed the net profit at the rate of 5.76% amounting to ₹ 9,873,846 on turnover of ₹ 171,420,934. The learned CIT - A confirmed the addition of the difference on account of net profit as per books of accounts of ₹ 4,828,899/- and estimated net profit at the rate of 5.76% amounting to ₹ 9,873,846. Therefore the addition of ₹ 5,044,947 has already been confirmed on account of bogus purchases. Therefore, the order of the learned AO making the 100 % Percent addition of alleged bogus purchases of ₹ 1,158,195/- is incorrect. He further stated that the addition ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... w the issue that arises is whether when the already addition of ₹ 5,044,947/- is confirmed to arrive at the net profit rate of 5.76% as decided by the settlement commission in assessee's own case further addition is required to be made on account of alleged bogus purchases of ₹ 1,158,195/- or not. Of course, It is required to be separately added provided the difference between the net profit rate of 5.76% amounting to ₹ 9,873,846 and actually declared net profit as per books of accounts of ₹ 4,828,898/- is lower than the alleged bogus purchases. Here the alleged bogus purchases are only Rs. 11,58,195 whereas the already sustained addition is of ₹ 5,047,947/-. Thus, according to us the learned CIT - A is cor ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
