9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (9) TMI 481X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... added and estimated @ 12.5% of bogus purchases. DR could not controvert the observations of the CIT(A) with any new cogent evidence and material but relied only on the AO order. We find that the CIT(A) has dealt on the facts and considered the profit element in the bogus purchases and also the A.O has not disputed the sales. CIT(A) has relied on the decisions of Hon ble High Court and passed a reasoned order. Accordingly, we do not find any infirmity in the order of the CIT(A) and uphold the same and dismiss the grounds of appeal raised by the revenue. - Shri Br Baskaran, Accountant Member And Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale Judicial Member For the Appellant : Smt. Mahita Nair. Sr. DR For the Respondent : None ORDER PER PAVAN KUMAR GADALE, JM: T ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ot appreciating the law correctly that once the purchases are unverifiable / not genuine / bogus, the same should have been disallowed in entirety, particularly in view of the ratio of the decision of the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in Tax Appeal No. 242 of 2003 dated 20/06/2016 in the case of N. K. Proteins Ltd. against which the SLP was dismissed by the Hon'ble Apex Court?. 2. The brief facts of the case are that, the assessee is engaged in the business of manufacturing of pipe fittings. The assessee has filed the return of income for the A.Y. 2010-11 on 30/09/2010 disclosing a total income of Rs. 2,48,750/- and the return of income processed u/sec 143(1) of the Act. Subsequently, the Assessing officer (A.O.) has received informati ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tiny assessment, submissions of the assessee on the disputed issue. Finally the CIT(A) considered the judicial decisions of the Hon ble High Court and Hon ble Tribunal and restricted the addition to the extent of 12.5% of bogus purchases and partly allowed the assessee appeal. 4. Aggrieved by the CIT(A) order, the revenue has filed an appeal before the Hon ble Tribunal. At the time of hearing, none appeared on behalf of the assessee. The Ld.DR submitted that the CIT(A) has erred in restricting the addition @12.5% irrespective of facts that no proper information was filed in the Assessment proceedings and relied on the order of the A.O. 5. We heard the rival submissions and perused the material on record. The sole crux of the disputed issue ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
