2022 (9) TMI 831 - AT - Income Tax

Estimation of income - Bogus purchases - reasonability of disallowance of bogus/tainted/disputed purchases - HELD THAT:- We find that Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court in various case laws, including in the decision in Simit P Seth [2013 (10) TMI 1028 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT] and Bholanath Poly Fab [2013 (10) TMI 933 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT] held that only profit element embedded in such bogus purchases should be disallowed, to avoid the possibility of revenue leakage and not the entire aggregate of disputed purchases.

Considering the fact that Shri Praveen Kumar Jain was well known entry provider. Shri Gautam Jain was also actively involved along with Praveen Kumar Jain. The department has taxed Shri Praveen Kumar Jain and Gautam Jain as entry provider and taxed certain percentage on total entry provided by them. We find that in a similar case, the combination of this Bench, wherein the cases of beneficiary in case of Shri Rajendra Jain, Gautam Jain or Praveen Kumar Jain, disallowance of similar purchases were either increased to 6% or wherein the disallowance was restricted at higher percentage, was restricted to 6%, therefore, taking a consistent view, the disallowance restricted by the ld. CIT(A) is modified and the Assessing Officer is directed to restrict the disallowance of purchases from all five parties to the extent of 6% only. Appeal of the revenue is partly allowed