9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (6) TMI 1364X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ering of it by the Ld. CIT(A). Nothing is brought before us as to why the present A.Y. should be dealt with separately from the two previous A.Y. 2009-10 and 2010-11, wherein the concerned Ld. CIT(A) as discussed in earlier part of this order, has restricted the additions to the extent of 12.5% on account of alleged bogus purchases. There is no illegality and perversity in the impugned order of the Ld. CIT(A) and we find no merit in the appeal and accordingly decides the grounds of appeal against the appellant by dismissing the same. - Smt. Padmavathy S., Accountant Member And Shri. Raj Kumar Chauhan, Judicial Member For the Assessee : Shri. Bharat P. Shah For the Department : Shri. Dinesh A. Chourasia Sr. AR. ORDER PER RAJ KUMAR CHAUHAN ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... o 12.5% of the amount of bogus purchase and assuming in Para 5.4.2 of his order that the assessee had indeed made purchase, though not from named parties but other parties from grey marked without appreciating the fact that the assessee has not been able to establish that the purchase were actually made from any parties and without appreciating the fact that the entire bogus purchase was a debit in the P/L account to suppress taxable profit? e. The appellant craves leave to amend or alter any ground or add new ground which may be necessary. 2. The brief facts giving rise to the present appeal are as under: - 3. The assessee filed its return of income declaring total income of Rs. 1,64,04,332/-, the said return was processed u/s.143(1) of th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ases to reduce the profitability and accordingly reduces the tax liability. As depicted in para 4.6 of the Ld. AO s order, these parties with whom the total sale of Rs. 1,53,39,117/- was done by the assessee company, the same has been treated as bogus purchases expenses and accordingly added back to the total income of the assessee u/s. 69C of the Act treating the same as unexplained expenditure. Penalty proceedings u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act were initiated separately. 6. The assessee being dissatisfied with the Ld. AO s order filed appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) who has disposed off the same by the impugned order dated 25.03.2014. 7. We have heard the Ld. AR for the assessee and Ld. DR for the revenue/appellant. The department had relied upon ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... eme Court decision in case of N. K. Proteins Ltd vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax [SLP No. 769 of 2017] but the Ld. CIT(A) has distinguished the said case by giving sound reasons in para no. 3 of impugned order. It is therefore vehemently argued that the appeal is devoid of any merit and liable to be dismissed. 10. We have considered the rival submissions of the parties. The Ld. CIT(A) has dealt with the issue of disallowance to the extent of 100% made by Ld. AO on account of bogus purchases in para no. 5.4 of this order and for the sake of appreciation of matter, the same is reproduced as under: - 5.4. Decision on Grounds of Appeal No.2 3: 5.4.1 I have considered the rival contentions. I find from the assessment order that the Sales T ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... fficer having found that some of alleged suppliers of steel to assessee (Simit P. Sheth) had not supplied steel to assessee (Simit P. Sheth) but had only provided sale bills, held that purchases made from said parties were bogus. He, accordingly, added entire amount of purchases to gross profit of assessee (Simit P. Sheth). The Commissioner (Appeals) having found that assessee (Simit P. Sheth) had indeed made purchases, though not from named parties but other parties from grey market, sustained addition to extent of 30 per cent of purchase cost as M/s. Gemsons Precision Engineering Pvt. Ltd. A.Y. 2010-11/IT-10274/2016-17 Page 13 of 14 probable profit of assessee (Simit P. Sheth). Tribunal however, sustained addition to extent of 12.5%. The ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... assessee with regard to the distinguishable facts of the case of the assessee from the facts of N.K Proteins Ltd referred ( supra ). The relevant part of those submissions which were considered and accepted by the Ld. CIT(A) is reproduced as under: - 3. The Supreme Court Judgement in the N.K Proteins Ltd vs Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax [SLP No. 769 of 2017] is not applicable in the assessee's case as there are material difference between two case. The information and concrete documents were available with Assessing Officer confiscated by department during search operations. The blank cheques of the bogus parties, etc were available. However, in the assessee's case only information as to bills issued by dealers who are bogus in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
