TMI Blog2017 (9) TMI 524X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ne of GP rate of 12.5% of the total purchases as made by the AO on the basis that the AO did not doubt the corresponding sales thereof. CIT(A) also observed that the assessee might have purchased the material from the grey market and thus made savings of VAT, octroi and other relevant taxes - Decided against assessee. Disallowance of expenses - assessee non produced bills and vouchers - Held that:- We are fully in agreement with the ld.CIT(A) that the assessee has failed to produce necessary bills and vouchers of the said expenses and therefore the FAA has rightly disallowed the said expenses. Accordingly, we uphold the action of the ld.CIT(A) - Decided against assessee Income from other sources - various receipts as appearing in the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... essees. In appeals No.7167 to 7169/Mum/2016, neither the assessee nor their authorized representative appeared before this Tribunal when the appeals were called for hearing nor any application seeking adjournment of the hearing was received in the office of the Tribunal despite service of notice through RPAD. Therefore, we proceed to dispose of the appeals of the assessee ex-parte after hearing the ld.DR. 2. First we shall take up the appeals of the assessee bearing ITA No.7167/Mum/2016. 3. The grounds of appeal no.1 to 4 are against the upholding the order of re-opening the assessment under section 147 r.w.s. 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 4. Brief facts of the case are that the AO ,after receiving information from the Sal ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... llant is factually wrong. The notice issued u/s 148 is well within the tie and the assessment order is also not time barred. This ground of appeal is dismissed 5. We have carefully considered the contentions of ld.DR and perused the material placed before us including the orders of authorities below. We find from the record that the proceeding u/s 148 of the Act were rightly initiated within the period of 6 years from the end of the assessment year as the income escaping the assessment was of more than ₹ 1 lakh. There is nothing on record to controvert the findings of the ld.CIT(A) on this issue. We, therefore, are inclined to uphold the same. Accordingly, grounds of appeal no.1 to 4 are dismissed. 6. The issue raised in the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rprises ₹ 69,76,382/-. During the assessment proceedings, the assessee neither filed any documentary evidence nor co-operated with the AO. As a result, the AO added the entire bogus purchase to the total income of the assessee and thus finalized the assessment exparte. In the appellate proceedings, the ld.CIT(A) after examining the various records sustained the addition to the tune of GP rate of 12.5% of the total purchases as made by the AO on the basis that the AO did not doubt the corresponding sales thereof. The ld CIT(A) also observed that the assessee might have purchased the material from the grey market and thus made savings of VAT, octroi and other relevant taxes. The ld.CIT(A) also distinguished the decision of the Hon ble B ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ties. 13. We find from the order of ld.CIT(A), the assessee has failed to produce the evidences of ₹ 1,64,362/- with regards to various receipts as appearing in AIR on which TDS was also deducted. In our opinion the FAA has rightly directed the AO to verify whether the said income has been declared by the assessee in the return of income and if not assess accordingly. The AO is directed to decide as directed by the FAA. The ground allowed for statistical purposes. 14. In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands partly allowed for statistical purposes. ITA NOs.7168 to 7169/Mum/2016 (AY-2009-10 and 2010-2011) 15. Facts of these cases are materially same to that of ITA No.7167/Mum/2016. Since we have already decided ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... -09 (non-hawala purchase year) to 8.69% and 7.02% in AY 2010-11 and AY 2011-12 respectively due to hawala purchases by the assessee. The ld. CIT(A) also observed that the GP of the assessee for this year after disallowing bogus purchases has gone very high i.e.25% to 27% as against the GP at the rate of 12.91% in the assessment year 2008-09. 21. After hearing rival parties and on perusal of the record including the impugned orders, we find the assessee has declared GP at 8.69% and 7.2 % for the AY 2010-111 and 2011-2012 respectively which went up to 26.99% and 25% respectively in both the assessment years after addition of entire bogus purchases and after disallowing of hawala purchases which is unrealistic and unreasonable. The ld. AR a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
