9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (8) TMI 489X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Addl./Joint CIT(A) has followed the decision of the coordinate bench of the Tribunal in assessee s own case cited supra, we find no infirmity in the impugned directions. Appeal by the Revenue is dismissed. - Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Judicial Member And Smt. Renu Jauhri, Accountant Member For the Revenue : Shri R. R. Makwana, Sr. DR For the Assessee : Shri R.U.Jain ORDER PER SANDEEP SINGH KARHAIL, J.M. The present appeal has been filed by the Revenue challenging the impugned order dated 05/03/2024 passed under section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ( the Act ) by the learned Addl./Joint Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Thiruvanantpuram, [ learned Addl./Joint CIT(A) ], for the assessment year 2009-10. 2. In this appeal, the Revenue ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... initiated in the case of the assessee based on information received from Sales Tax Department through DGIT (Investigation) that the assessee has taken entries of non-genuine purchases to the tune of INR 60,60,302, and accordingly, notice under section 148 of the Act was issued and served on the assessee. In response to the statutory notices issued under section 143(2) as well as section 142(1) along with a questionnaire, the assessee filed the details as called for. During the assessment proceedings, the assessee was asked to show cause as to why the aforesaid transaction should not be taken as non-genuine and accordingly disallowed. Barring the ledger account and cheque payments, no other documents such as lorry receipts, transportation de ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... us. 6. We have considered the rival submissions and perused the material available on record. We find that the coordinate bench of the Tribunal in assessee s own case in Ashwin Moolchand Madhani v/s ITO, ITAs No. 6784 and 6785/Mum./2018, for the assessment years 2010-11 and 2011-12, vide order dated 04/02/2020, in similar factual matrix, directed that disallowance be restricted to 12.5% of the bogus purchases as reduced by the gross profit rate already declared by the assessee on these transactions. The coordinate bench further held that if the gross profit rate already declared by the assessee is more than 12.5%, then no disallowance is called for. Since, in the present case, the learned Addl./Joint CIT(A) has followed the decision of the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
