9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (5) TMI 811X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... umstances of the case and in law, the Ld CIT(A), has erred in reducing gross profit @ 7.89% as against the 100% addition made by the Assessing officer on account of bogus purchases of Rs. 3,42,65,843/-, by ignoring the fact that the DGIT (Inv.), had proved beyond doubt that Shri Bhanwarlal Jain group concerns were involved in providing accommodation entry of sales & purchases without actual delivery of goods and the assessee was one of the beneficiary accepting accommodation entries for the purchases of goods? 2. "Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld CIT(A), has erred in reducing gross profit @ 7.89% as against the 100% addition made by the Assessing officer on account of bogus purchases of Rs. 3,42 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ficer on account of bogus purchases of Rs. 3,42,65,843/-, without appreciating the ratio in the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of N.K. Proteins Ltd., wherein the Court has held that when the purchases are from bogus suppliers, the entire purchases are liable to be disallowed. 6. "Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld CIT(A) has erred in reducing gross profit @ 7.89% as against the 100% addition made by the Assessing officer on account of bogus purchases of Rs. 3,42,65,843/-, without appreciating the fact that in the case of Swetamber Steels Ltd.(supra), the Hon'ble ITAT, Ahmadabad had confirmed the disallowance of the bogus purchase in entirety stating that the purchases sh ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... officer treated the above purchases of Rs. 342,65,843/- as bogus purchases and made addition under section 69C of the Act by passing an assessment order. 05. The assessee aggrieved and preferred the appeal before the learned CIT - A. The learned CIT - A followed the decision of the coordinate bench in assessee's own case for assessment year 2007 - 08 and directed the assessing officer to restrict the addition to the gross profit rate of 7.89% while working out the profit element embedded in the non genuine purchases of Rs. 342,65,843/-. Both the parties are aggrieved by that order. 06. The assessee preferred an appeal in ITA No. 3682/Mum/2023 which was disposed off by the coordinate bench on 13/3/2024 wherein following the decision of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d non genuine trade could be added to the total income of the assessee. The coordinate Bench in the appellate order found that gross profit of non genuine purchases 7.64% whereas the gross profit of the assessee from other purchases is 7.89%, and therefore, the difference of 0.25% was added to the total income of the assessee. Therefore, the issue has been decided on the merits of the case in the appeal of the assessee arising out of the same appellate order. 09. The learned Departmental Representative also could not show us any reason that why the order of the coordinate Bench following the decision of the honourable Bombay High Court and in assessee's own case for earlier year should not be followed. As the coordinate Bench has taken ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
