9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (11) TMI 1266X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nal had before it the facts which were duly analysed by it. No interference is called for in the said conclusion and findings of the Tribunal in the present appeal by this court. No substantial questions of law. - HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BHARGAV D. KARIA And HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE MAUNA M. BHATT MRS KALPANA K RAVAL ( 1046 ) FOR THE APPELLANT(S) NO. 1 MR B S SOPARKAR ( 6851 ) FOR THE OPPONENT(S) NO. 1 MRS SWATI SOPARKAR ( 870 ) FOR THE OPPONENT(S) NO. 1 ORDER ( PER : HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BHARGAV D. KARIA ) 1. Heard learned advocate Mr.Rudram Trivedi for learned advocate Mrs.Kalpana K. Raval for the appellant and learned advocate Mr.B.S.Soparkar for the respondent. 2. This Tax Appeal is filed under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... m bogus parties was liable to be added in the hands of the Assessee, reversing the decision of Hon'ble ITAT to restrict the addition to 25%. 4. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case in law, the Hon'ble ITAT has justified in restricting the addition to 6% without considering the judgment of Calcutta High Court of in the case of PCIT vs. Premlata Tekriwal (143 taxmann.com 173) involving similar issue of purchase of bogus concern to suppress profits wherein the 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. 5. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case in law, the Hon ble tribunal is right in deleting the add ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e impugned order dated 28.06.2022, partly allowed the appeal of the Revenue and restricted the disallowance at 6% of the amount of the unexplained purchases. 4.1. At the outset, learned advocate Mr.Rudram Trivedi for the Appellant-Revenue submitted that the Tribunal has relied upon the Judgment of the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court (Coram: Hon ble Mr.Justice N.V.Anjaria and Hon ble Mr.Justice Niral R. Mehta) in case of Principal Commissioner of Income Tax Versus Pankaj K. Choudhary dated 07.03.2023 rendered in Tax Appeal No.617 of 2022 for partly allowing the appeal of the Revenue wherein it was held that in respect of bogus purchases, the addition at the rate of 6% of bogus purchases is fair and reasonable. 4.2. Learned advocate Mr.Rudram ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... that they were the genuine transactions. The contention of the assessee that he had not dealt with the Bhanvarlal Jain group was also negatived. The appellate Commissioner took the view that disallowance was required to be sustained at 12.5% of the purchase. The Assessing Officer was directed accordingly to workout disallowance. In para 10.6, the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), recorded thus, As held above, it is clear that the appellants have made purchases from elsewhere, but have obtained bills from the impugned suppliers. From the Trading P L account and Audit report it can be seen that the GP rate shown by appellant is 1.85% oil sales. In such circumstances the disallowance of 100% of purchases cannot be justified. Also as held a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... te Tribunal partially allowed the appeal of the assessee to further reduce the disallowance at 6%. In so concluding, the Tribunal observed in paragraph No.21 as under, .......during the financial year under consideration the assessee has shown total turnover of Rs. 66,09,62,458/-. The assessee has shown Gross Profit @ 78% and net Profit @ 0.02% (page 11 of paper Book). The assessee while filing the return of income has declared taxable income of Rs. 1,81,840/- only. We are conscious of the facts that dispute before us is only with regard of the disputed purchases of Rs. 4.34 Crore, which was shown to have purchased from the entity managed by Bhanwarlal Jain Group. During the search action on Bhanwarlal Jain no stock of goods/material was fo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... isallowance at 6% from 12.5%, the Tribunal had before it the facts which were duly analysed by it. No interference is called for in the said conclusion and findings of the Tribunal in the present appeal by this court. 6.1 The another weighing aspect is that the Tax Appeal No. 674 of 2022 in Principal Commissioner of Income Tax 1, Surat vs. M/s. Surya Impex which came to be decided by the co- ordinate Bench on 16.1.2023 dealt with the very issue of accommodation entries provided by Bhanwarlal Jain Group. The group involved in the said case is the same group who is saddled with allegations of providing accommodation entry to the assessee. In M/s. Surya Impex (supra) the court held in favour of the assessee. The questions of law involved in th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
