TMI Blog2015 (6) TMI 1087X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Rajesh Ojha (JCIT) ORDER PER: T.R. MEENA, A.M. This is an appeal filed by the revenue against the order dated 12/04/2012 passed by the learned CIT (A)-I, Jaipur for A.Y. 2007-08 The effective grounds of appeal are as under:- Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law the ld. CIT(A) is justified in:- 1 directing to applying g.p. rate of 6.50% and thereby reducing the trading addition to ₹ 13,69,762/- made by the A.O. by disallowing @ 25% unverifiable purchases of ₹ 57,48,691/- though the rejection of books of accounts U/s 145(3) of the I.T. Act, 1961 was upheld. 2. Reducing the addition keeping in view the decision of ld. CIT(A) in the case of M/s Nand Kishore Meghraj in I ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 2. M/s Aayush Jewellers 2,65,415/- 3. M/s Govindam Jewellers 13,28,897/- 4. M/s Gaurav Exports 6,86,130/- 5. M/s Touch Jewels 10,14,794/- 6. M/s Anil Exporters 6,82,664/- 7. M/s Mahaveer Gems Jewels 3,93,680/- 8. M/s Brigh Jewels 8,12,410/- Total 57,48,691/- He further observed that the aforesaid ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sion in the case of Kachwala Gems Vs. JCIT 288 ITR 10 (SC), ACIT Vs. Shrikishan Malpani 32 Taxworld 122 (Jpr Trib) and ACIT Vs. Sh. Sindhuja Foods Pvt. Ltd. 35 Taxworld 67 (JU Trib), he rejected the book result U/s 145(3) of the Act and after following the decision in the case of Sanjay Oil Cake Industries Vs. CIT (2008) 10 DTR (Guj)153 and M/s Vijay Proteins Ltd. Vs. ACIT 58 ITD 426 (Ahd.), he disallowed 25% of unverifiable purchases of ₹ 57,48,691/- and made addition of ₹ 14,37,171/- to the income of the assessee. 3. Being aggrieved by the order of the learned Assessing Officer, the assessee carried the matter before the learned CIT(A), who had allowed the assessee s appeal partly by observing as under:- I have careful ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e on the basis of overall surrounding circumstances of the case. The assessee could not produce these parties for verification. Notices were issued by the Assessing Officer, were neither got served by assessee nor were found on given addresses, therefore, disallowance of 25% on unverifiable purchases may please be confirmed. 5. No one appeared on behalf of the assessee to defend their case but we have considered the submissions made before the ld. CIT(A). 6. We have heard the rival contentions of both the parties and perused the material available on the record. Similar line of cases, this Bench has decided in the case of Shri Anuj Kumar Varshney Vs. I.T.O. and other cases in ITA No. 187/JP/2012 order dated 22/10/2014 wherein 15% disa ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
