Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Income Tax + AT Income Tax - 2015 (8) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2015 (8) TMI 327 - AT - Income TaxReopening of assessment - assessee has inflated the purchases by accepting bogus bills from the market - Held that:- In this case, the order U/s 143(1) was passed. There was a reason to believe that the assessee has inflated the purchases by accepting bogus bills from the market on which this case was reopened and quantified additions were made by the Assessing Officer after verification as the Hon'ble Supreme Court in various cases has held that reason to believe does not have certainty that Assessing Officer in each and every case should have made addition but there should be prima facie believe of escapement of income. The finding given by the ld CIT(A) had not controverted by the AR. The subsequent year finding as held in Siemens Information Systems Ltd. Versus ACIT [2012 (2) TMI 281 - Bombay High Court] can be reason in reopening wherein ld Assessing Officer had made the addition on account of bogus purchases by rejecting the books of account U/s 145(3) of the Act, which has been confirmed by the ld CIT(A), therefore, we dismiss this ground of appeal. - Decided against assessee. Rejection of books of accounts - Held that:- The assessee raised this ground before us. On verification of form No. 35, there was no specific ground on rejection of books U/s 145(3) of the Act. Further the Hon'ble Rajasthan High Court as well as the Coordinate Bench of the ITAT, Jaipur in various cases of gems and jewellery business has held that the book result is not reliable and accordingly Assessing Officer's action U/s 145(3) is justified. The detailed findings on this issue has been given by this Bench in the case of Shri Anuj Kumar Varshney Vs. ITO [2015 (4) TMI 533 - ITAT JAIPUR] - Decided against assessee. Trading addition by applying G.P. rate of 17% as against the G.P. rate of 12.61% declared by the assessee - CIT(A) deleting the addition by applying the G.P. @ 17% as against the disallowance of ₹ 45,03,020/- @ 25% on unverifiable purchases made by the Assessing Officer - Held that:- Similar line of cases, this Bench has decided in the case of Shri Anuj Kumar Varshney Vs. I.T.O. and other cases [2015 (4) TMI 533 - ITAT JAIPUR] where on unverifiable/bogus purchases 15% disallowances has been decided. Accordingly, we also apply 15% disallowances on unverifiable purchases in this case also. The Assessing Officer is directed to recalculate the income as per above direction. - Decided partly in favour of revenue.
|