9911796707
TMI Blog2025 (3) TMI 412X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... T: [PER M. S. SONAK, J.] 1. Heard learned Counsel for the parties. 2. These Appeals relate to assessment years 2007-08 to 2012-13. 3. Mr Waglay, the learned Counsel for the Appellants, requests that the Income Tax Appeal No. 2111 of 2019 be treated as the lead Appeal. He proposes the following substantial question of law, which, according to him, arises in all these Appeals:- "Whether the Hon'ble Tribunal erred on facts & in law in confirming the addition to the extent of 10% of the Gross Profit margin in respect of unproved purchases for A. Y. 2009-10." 4. The other questions are not pressed, and in any event, we are satisfied that none of the questions in paragraph 2 of the Appeal memo arise in these Appeals. The challenges are ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... revenue's appeals, even these appeals deserve to be dismissed. 8. Still, we heard Mr Waglay, the learned Counsel for the Appellants, when he contended that the rejection of the assessee's books of account was improper or that this was not a case of bogus purchases and even the addition of 10% was not proper. He strenuously submitted that merely because purchase invoices and delivery challan were not produced, the purchase could not have been doubted. He further submitted that simply because the suppliers did not appear before the assessing officer, the purchases could not be held to be bogus. He relied on CIT Vs. Nikunj Eximp Enterprises Pvt Ltd 372 ITR 619 (Bom) and PCIT Vs Vaman International P Ltd 422 ITR 520 (Bom) to support his conten ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... om the fact that no substantial question of law based on perversity is even suggested, we find that the Appellants make out no such case. In fact, at the invitation of Mr Wagle, upon evaluating the material on record, we find that the material on record well supports the findings of fact. Based on such findings of fact, we were surprised that the assessing officer did not make a 100% addition and let off the assessee by making only a 25% addition. 13. Apart from not producing purchase invoices or delivery challans, the Appellant assessee failed to produce any credible material supporting the purchases. Even Octroi Check Naka records were not produced on the spacious plea that since the Appellant was dealing in the transportation of fish an ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... uation of all such material on record. 16. In this case, the assessing officer has accepted the Appellant's version regarding some of the supplies, which were backed by documentation like delivery challans. If delivery challans and other valid documentation were possible regarding some of the supplies, we fail to understand why the same was not possible regarding the supplies, which are now adjudged as bogus. The explanation for the meagre documentation inspired no confidence and bordered on frivolity. The assessing officer has also considered the stereotyped affidavits of the so-called suppliers and correctly rejected them. 17. Mr Waglay posed a question to this Court as to why the Appellant would deal with the same suppliers if the Appe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
