Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Income Tax + HC Income Tax - 2020 (3) TMI HC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2020 (3) TMI 1337 - GUJARAT HIGH COURTEstimation of income - bogus purchases - Tribunal confirming the addition being 25% of the alleged bogus purchases - HELD THAT:- As in the facts of the present case, as the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court has already dismissed Cross Appeal filed by the Revenue confirming the order passed by the Tribunal, it would not serve any purpose to remand the matter back to the Tribunal so as to give finding of fact in order to ascertain whether the decision of this Court in GUJARAT AMBUJA EXPORT LTD. [2014 (2) TMI 1344 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT] would be applicable so as to restrict the addition to 5% of the total bogus purchase made by the assessee from M/s Vishal Traders. Assessee did not give any explanation in respect of the bogus purchases and also taking note of the fact that during the course of appellate proceedings the remand report was called for from the Assessing Officer in that regard and after considering the remand report, the CIT(A) found as a matter of fact the purchases shown from Vishal Traders were not actual purchase but only bills had been obtained and the cheques issued to M/s Vishal Traders were only an eye wash, the cash was returned back to the assessee. The assessee in the present case has not placed on record either before Assessing Officer or before CIT(A) with regard to its GP rate or maintenance of the stock register or to show that the prices shown in the bills of the Vishal Traders where the current prevailing price of the goods, which was shown as purchases by the assessee. The CIT(A) has carried out a detailed inquiry and on analysis of facts has come to the conclusion that as the purchases claimed from the Gayatri Cotton could not be substantiated by the appellant-assessee and there is nothing on record to show that the cash purchases made by the appellant were true and correct. No purpose would be served to remand the matter back to the Tribunal so as to give an opportunity of hearing to the appellant as the Tribunal has passed the impugned order in absence of the appellant. No legal infirmity of the impugned order passed by the Tribunal - No substantial question of law.
|