TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2017 (7) TMI 566
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....No.77/CHD/2015 dated 18-12 -2015, in pursuance to a Miscellaneous Application filed by the assessee. 2. The assessee has raised the following revised grounds of appeal before us : "1. The learned CIT(A) has erred in confirming the total addition of Rs. 71,77,603/- made by the AO vide its order u/s 143(3) dated 11/02/2013. 2. The learned CIT(A) has erred in confirming the addition of Rs. 59,56,645/- by treating the cash purchases as bogus and not granting any deduction u/s 80 1C on the same. 3. The learned CIT(A) has erred in confirming the AO's addition of Rs. 12,20,958/- by treating 25% of the total purchases from 3 parties namely i) m/s Gurcharan Banga Fruit Co., of Rs. 58,13,166/- ii) Shri Gurmeet Singh of Rs. 40,84,229/- an....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
...., 896/ 4. The Assessing Officer, thereafter, calculated the sales attributable to the aforestated bogus purchases by applying the ratio of raw material consumed to the sales made by the assessee. He then worked out the profits on the sales attributable to the bogus purchases made by the assessee by applying the net profit rate shown by the assessee of 14.61% to the sales, and calculated the same at Rs. 59,56,645 on the cash purchases and Rs. 12,20,958/- on account of the three parties. The Assessing Officer treated these profits as income of the assessee from undisclosed sources on which no deduction under section 80 IC was available and added the same the taxable income of the assessee. 5. The matter was carried in appeal before the Ld.....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....t come across any discrepancy related to the sales and therefore could not have treated a part of sale as bogus merely on account of treatment of purchases as bogus. The CIT(A), after considering the assessees submissions, upheld the disallowance made, for the reason that the assessee had failed to file any evidence in support of the purchases made. The CIT(A)held at paragraph 6 of her order as follows: "6. I have gone through the facts of the case, appellant's submissions, case laws relied upon. During the course of assessment proceeding assessee had failed to furnish details of parties from whom cash purchases were made and no bills were produced in support of its claim that the cash purchases were genuine. At appellate stage assess....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....business of preserving and processing fruits and vegetables and that it qualified for deduction under section 80 IC of the Income Tax Act, 1961, which had been allowed to it from assessment year 07-08 onwards. The assessee further submitted that it made purchases both from agents/producers- farmers and that small purchases were made from farmers who were paid in cash while purchases made from established traders were either made by cheques or bank transfers. The assessee further submitted that bills were not usually raised by the small agriculturists since they did not have any bill books and since their products were not taxable under VAT/CST. Having described the nature of the business and the manner of carrying out the business, the asse....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....see also stated that the AO had not doubted the sales by made by the assessee and therefore there was no reason at all to disallow the profit made on account of the purchase and sale transaction attributed to the purchases held bogus 11. Alternatively Ld. Counsel for the assessee stated that the addition made on account of inflated profits had only increased the profit of the business of the assessee and there was no reason or evidence with the AO to hold that the same was on account of income from other sources. Ld.Counsel for the assessee stated that the CBDT had issued a circular No.37/2016 dated 2nd Nov, 2016 wherein it had directed that additions made on account of disallowances made, which resulted in enhancement of profits of assess....