9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (10) TMI 529X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sue raised by the assessee is against the confirmation of addition to the extent of 25% of alleged purchases by the ld. CIT(A) by ignoring the facts that the assessee has declared the profit of 3% during the year as against the addition of 100% of the purchases by the AO. 3. Facts of the case are the assessee filed return of income on 30.9.2011 declaring total income of Rs. 7,28,99,590/-. The return was processed u/s 143(1) of the Act. Thereafter the case was selected for scrutiny and the statutory notices u/s 143(2) and 142(1) were issued and served upon the assessee. The assessee is engaged in the business of manufacturing and processing of ferro and metal alloys and manufacturing nickel alloys and stainless steel wires. The AO received ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y the assessee during the hearing before him and upheld the addition to the extent of 25% of the purchases by observing and holding as under : "3.3 I have considered the facts and circumstances of the case. The appellant had purchased goods from M/s Suraj Steel India for Rs. 1,38,49,500/- and M/s Pooja and Alloys for Rs. 1,52,98,500/- totaling to Rs. 2,91,48,000/-. The AO treated the above purchase as bogus in nature as AO had received information from Investigation wing. But the purchaser. The appellant in its submissions states that AO had failed to appreciate the documents from the parties ledger accounts, bank statements, details of bills, etc copies of invoice against the transport bills and delivery challans to prove the genuineness ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... o the earlier years of the recent past. Under the circumstances no question of law arises. 3.4 When we examined the above case law of the Gujarat HC who had upheld he taxation of 25% of the amount of bogus purchase as taxable income. Here the appellant declared the net profit @3%, so 22% of bogus purchase may be treated as disallowable amount. Hence, AO may disallowed 22% of bogus purchase amount as taxable profit. Hence ground of appeal is partly allowed." 5. We have heard the rival contentions and perused the material placed before us including the case law relied upon by the assessee. The undisputed facts are that the assessee had taken bogus bills from two parties aggregating to Rs. 2,91,48,000/- without taking delivery of material ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
