9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (10) TMI 662X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... MR. JUSTICE BHARGAV D. KARIA AND HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE MAUNA M. BHATT Appearance: For the Appellant(s) No. 1 : Mr Rudram Trivedi, Advocate with Mrs Kalpana K Raval (1046). For the Respondent : None ORAL ORDER (PER: HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE MAUNA M. BHATT) 1. This appeal under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ( the Act for short) at the instance of revenue is directed against the order dated 21.02.2024 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Surat in ITA No. 02/SRT/2020 for Assessment Year 2008-09 proposing the following substantial questions of law: - (i) Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Hon'ble ITAT has justified partly allowing the appeal of the assessee and restricting the addition to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... court held that since it was established that expenditure was unexplained/bogus, entire amount of bogus expenditure was to be added to income of Assessee ? ➤ the ratio of judgement of Hon'ble Apex Court the issue of unexplained expenditure (bogus purchase)in the case of N.K. Proteins v. Dy. CIT [2017] 84 taxmann.com 195/250 Taxman 22 (SC) wherein, the SLP filed by the assessee has been dismissed by the Hon'ble Apex Court? (iv) Whether on the facts and circumstance of the case and in law, the Hon'ble ITAT has justified in restricting the addition to 6% of the total bogus purchases even though the AO has made 100% addition of bogus transaction amounting to Rs. 19,62,39,212/-made by the Assessee with the entry provider not ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... income. 4. Aggrieved by the order of assessment, the assessee preferred an appeal before CIT(A). The CIT(A) vide order dated 25.10.2019, rejected books of accounts under Section 145(3) of the Act and restricted the addition to 0.50% being estimated commission earned on account of bogus purchases. For restricting the additions, CIT (A) relied upon assesse s own case for A.Y. 2007-08. 5. Against the order CIT(A), the Revenue preferred appeal before ITAT. The ITAT by its common order dated 21.02.2024 for A.Y. 2007-08 and A.Y. 2008-09, restricted the addition to 6% of total bogus purchases, aggrieved by which present appeal is filed. 6. Heard learned advocate Mr. Rudram Trivedi for learned advocate Ms. Kalpana Raval for the appellant. 7. Learne ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e purchases are shown from Gautam Jain, Bhanwarlal Jain of Rajendra Jain and Company, who were proved entry provider, similar addition was either restricted or enhanced to 6%. We further find a similar order was followed in the case of ITO Vs Rajesh Kumar Pamecha in ITA No. 87/Srt/2017, ITO Vs Mukesh Mahavir prasad Sen ITA No. 15/Srt/2020 and other cases dated 13/01/2023. Therefore, taking a consistent view, the order of Id. CIT(A) is modified and the disallowance restricted to the extent of 0.50% is increased to 6% of the impugned purchases. We further find that in a similar case in PCIT Vs Surya Impex (supra ) the Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court affirms the decisions of this Tribunal on similar facts. Therefore, taking consistent vi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
