TMI Blog2015 (5) TMI 1048X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... /M/13, ITA 6139/M/13, ITA 7336/M/13, ITA 6140/M/13 & ITA 7337/M/13 - - - Dated:- 27-5-2015 - SHRI G.S. PANNU, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI AMIT SHUKLA, JUDICIAL MEMBER For the Appellant by Shri Bhupendra Shah For the Respondent by : Shri Yogesh Kamat O R D E R PER BENCH : The aforesaid appeals have been filed by the assessee as well as Revenue against separate impugned order of even date 02-09-2013, passed by the ld. CIT(A)- 25, Mumbai for quantum of assessment passed u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for the assessment years 2005-06, 2007-08 and 2008-09. 2. Since common issues are involved in all these appeals, therefore, they were heard together and are being disposed off by way of this consolidated order for the sake of convenience. For ready reference, the cross appeals for A.Y. 2005-06 is being taken up as lead appeal. 3. Grounds raised by the assessee for A.Y. 2005-06 read as under:- 1. Under the facts and the circumstances of the case of your Appellant, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in confirming the addition to the extent of 10% of disputed purchases i.e. ₹ 1, 17,624/= ( Rounded off to ₹ 1,17,620/-) o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... are that, the assessee is a partnership firm engaged in the business as dealers and merchant of cloth materials. The return of income was filed on 25-7-2005. In the case of one of the suppliers of the assessee firm Shri Rakesh Kumar M. Gupta (Proprietor of Manoj Mills) and group concerns, a survey u/s 133 A of the Act was carried out on 13/14- 2-2009. During the course of survey, in the statement recorded, Shri Rakesh Kumar M. Gupta stated that he was providing accommodation sale bill for the purchases in the name of these proprietary concerns, Shri Rakeshkumar M. Gupta, Prop. of M/s Manoj Mills, Smt. Hema R. Gupta, Prop. Of M/s Shree Ram Sales and Synthetics and Shri Mohit R. Gupta, Prop. of M/s Astha Silk Industries and other family members. Later on Shri Rakesh Kumar M. Gupta retracted the statement in a written communication to the A.O. and also by way of sworn affidavit filed by him and his family members who were proprietors of such concern. The copy of his affidavit is appearing in the paper book at page No. 68 69. Based on the information gathered during the survey operation, the assessee s case was reopened u/s 147 of the Act by issuing notice dated 26-2-2010 u/s 148 of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... parties for purchase of specified material. The AO has not denied such possibility by quoting the words hawala purchases/ or to accommodate the purchases made out of the books in para 17 of the assessment order. In these circumstances, the additions can only be made at certain percentage of GP/ NP or at an adhoc amount, in consonance with the appellate orders of various CITs(A) in cases of purchases from Mr. Rakeshkumar Gupta, the copies of which are submitted by the appellant. 6.3 Looking at the facts and circumstances of the case as a whole, I am of the considered view that the cause of justice would be met by making addition at 10% of such purchases in order to fill in the gap of difference of GP in recording the said purchases as well to plug any leakage of revenue. The AO has made additions of alleged purchases from Gupta party at ₹ 20,10,972/-, however as discussed above, the said purchases are accepted at ₹ 11,76,242/-. Hence, the additions is restricted to 10% of said purchases of ₹ 11,76,242/- i.e. Rs. of ₹ 1,17,624/- and the balance addition of ₹ 18,93,348/- (i.e. 20,10,972/- - 1,17,624/- is deleted. 7. Against this, both ass ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... cer had recorded alleged statement u/s. 133A and 131 of the I.T.Act. 1961 1 have been receiving witness summons from all four corners of the city on the ground that I have given accommodation bill, though I have denied the content of the statements recorded by A.O. u/s. 133A 131 vide my letter dated 27.4.2009 and my affidavit dated 20.2.2009 submitted to ward 14(3)(2). It is physically impossible for me to attend before various income tax authorities, as I am not feeling well, it will not possible for me to attend before your goodseif in response to your above mentioned summons. As regards M/s. Jitendra Harshad Kumar Textiles Pvt. Ltd. is concerned. I have already given my affidavit wherein I have specifically stated that I have sold the goods to M/s. Jitendra Harshad Kumar Textiles P. Ltd. and the consideration is received to me by cross order cheque. Copy of the said ledger account is already submitted the department. 8.1 From the above letter it is clear that the same was written in response to notice issued by the AO. Not only Shri Rakesh Kumar Gupta has stated that he has retracted from the statement recorded during the survey but also filed an affidavit ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
