TMI Blog2015 (8) TMI 1163X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... cision in case of Lal Chand Bhagat Ambica Ram Vs. CIT (1959 (5) TMI 12 - SUPREME Court) and Harish Kumar Vs DCIT (2002 (5) TMI 218 - ITAT HYDERABAD-B ) and prayed to confirm the order of the ld CIT(A).The addition under the head bogus purchases has already been confirmed by this Bench and the ld DR had not controverted the findings of the ld CIT(A). The depreciation is a statutory deduction, therefore, we uphold the order of the ld CIT(A) - Decided against revenue. - ITA No. 377/JP/2013, C. O. No. 28/JP/2013 - - - Dated:- 11-8-2015 - SHRI R.P. TOLANI AND SHRI T.R. MEENA, JJ. For The Revenue : Shri Kailash Mangal (JCIT) For The Assessee : Shri Vimal Chopra (CA) ORDER PER: T.R. MEENA, A.M. The appeal by revenue and cross objection by assessee arises from the order dated 28/02/2013 passed by the learned CIT (A)-I, Jaipur for A.Y. 2008-09. The ground of revenue s appeal and grounds of the assessee s C. O. are as under:- Ground in Revenue s Appeal. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the ld CIT(A)-I, Jaipur is justified in:- i) Granting relief of ₹ 10,37,461/- on account of trading addition made by the A.O. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... % commission on bogus bill amount. Both the concerns were not doing any gems jewellery business in reality but were providing the bogus bills to inflate the cost of purchases. The assessee was not able to produce these parties for verification before the Assessing Officer. The ld Assessing Officer issued notice U/s 133(6) of the Act and Ward Inspector was directed to serve notice and collected the required information from them but the Inspector submitted his report on 3/12/2010 and informed the Assessing Officer that there is no institution at the given address on the above name. the ld Assessing Officer again gave reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee which has been narrated on page 4-5 of the assessment order and accordingly, he applied Section 145(3) of the Act on book result. The assessee was also not maintained stock register, thus, opening, closing, purchase and sales are not subject to verification. The closing stock mainly prepared at the end of the year had been destroyed. The ld Assessing Officer relied on the following decisions:- (i) Rainbow Metals (India) (1995) 83 Taxman 160, 166. (ii) JCIT Vs. Kanchwala Gems (2007) 288 ITR 10. After consider ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Book. Further copy of show cause notice and reply filed on 13/12/2010 is appearing from page No. 15 of paper book. Copy of reply filed before Ld. CIT(A) is from page No. 1 to 5 of paper book. 2. Facts of the case under consideration are similar with that of the A.Y. 2006-07and the alleged bogus party is same with whom the assessee transacted in preceding year as well. (Copy of the decision of the Hon ble Bench is from page No. 6 to 14 in paper book. 3. Justification of Gross Profit Rate :- This year gross profit rate of 11.34% is declared by the assessee in comparison to 7.45% declared in previous year. 4. The turnover of assessee for the current year is 345.82 lacs as against ₹ 449.43 lacs in previous year. The turnover is 100% Export turnover. Despite of a decline of almost 25% in turnover the assessee has shown better trading results. As such it was urged that the accounts of the assessee need not be rejected by invoking provisions of Section 145(3). 5. Further submitted humbly that as the declared trading results are better than the trading results of last year as such the decision of Hon ble Jaipur Bench of ITAT in assessee s own case follo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ring the previous history of the assessee it is requested that the accounts of the assessee need not be rejected as they reflected true and correct view of the state of affairs of the assessee and it is therefore humbly prayed that the addition may kindly be deleted in full. 5. We have heard the rival contentions of both the parties and perused the material available on the record. This Bench has already decided identical issue in the case of Shri Anuj Kumar Varshney Vs. ITO others gems and jewellery cases in I. T. A. No. 187/JP/2012 others vide order dated 22/10/2014 wherein detailed findings are given on bogus purchases. Therefore, by respectfully following our own decision the above case on same identical facts and circumstances, we apply 15% N. P. on bogus purchases claimed by the assessee. It is clarified that by applying 15% N. P., the addition is worked out at ₹ 17,39,682/-. However, we do not have any power to enhance the addition under the law, therefore, we confirm the addition made by the ld Assessing Officer at ₹ 16,08,982/-. Accordingly, revenue s appeal is allowed and assessee s appeal is dismissed on this ground. 6. The second ground of the re ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
