9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (7) TMI 965X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... bogus purchases is fair and reasonable. AO had not rejected the sale of assessee but only the purchase. Hence, we direct the ld. AO to restrict the addition @12.5% on bogus purchase. - Shri. Amarjit Singh (Accountant Member) And Shri Anikesh Banerjee (Judicial Member) For the Assessee : Shri Ashok Bansal a/w Shri Ajay Daga For the Department : Shri Dhiraj Kumar, Sr. DR ORDER PER ANIKESH BANERJEE (JM): Instant appeal of the Revenue was filed against the order of the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax, Appeal ADDL/JCIT (A)-6 Kolkata [in short, Ld.CIT(A) ], date of order 12/02/2024 for A.Y. 2011-12 order passed under section 250 of the Income-tax Act, 1961(in short, the Act). Impugned order was emanated from the order of the ld.Asst. Commission ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of disputed purchases with the total income of the assessee U/s 69C of the Act. The aggrieved assessee filed an appeal before the ld. CIT(A).Ld.CIT(A) passed the appeal order and rejected the appeal of the assessee. Being aggrieved on the appeal order, the assessee filed an appeal before us. 4. The ld. AR vehemently argued and prayed for restrict the addition @12.5% of the bogus purchase determined by the ld. AO. The ld. AR further argued that the transactions with the purchasers are through banking channel, the invoice and road challans are duly filed before the revenue authority as proof of genuineness of the transaction. But the ld. AO only relied on the information of the Maharastra VAT department and added back the entire disputed purc ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t. The fact of the case is that AO had added Rs. 22,20,594- on account of bogus purchase made from accommodation entry providers. However, appellant refutes the same. It is seen that appellant is engaged in the business of printing. AO had received information from the Sales Tax Department through the O/o the DGIT (lnv),Mumbai, in respect of bogus purchasers along with a copy of statement of the hawala dealers. On perusal of the information, AO had noticed that the appellant had procured bogus purchase bills from the four parties. AO had independently initiated third party enquiry specifically on these four parties. AO had issued notices u/s 133(6) of the Act to the alleged parties; they remained unserved by the postal authorities. Thereaft ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d during this impugned financial year. We respectfully relied on the order of Hon ble Bombay High Court in case of PCIT vs S.V. Jiwani (2022) 145 taxmann.com 230 (Bom) wherein involving similar set of facts and circumstances of the case, the Hon ble jurisdictional High Court has upheld the decision of the Hon ble ITAT, Mumbai Bench that addition to the extent of @12.5% of the bogus purchases is fair and reasonable. The Ld. Assessing Officer had not rejected the sale of assessee but only the purchase. Hence, the addition amount of Rs. 22,20,594/- is quashed. We direct the ld. AO to restrict the addition @12.5% on bogus purchase amount to Rs. 22,20,594/- which works out to Rs. 277,574/-. The addition is restricted amount to Rs. 2777,574/-. Th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
