9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (11) TMI 1348X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ount of bogus purchase. 3. Brief facts are, the assessee a partnership firm is engaged in manufacture and trading of gold and diamond jewellery. For the assessment year under consideration, the assessee filed its return of income on 4th September 2012, declaring total income of Rs. 6,84,07,857. During the assessment proceedings, the Assessing Officer found that a search and survey operation was conducted in case of Bhawarlal Jain Group on 3rd October 2013 by the DGIT (Inv.), Mumbai. In the course of search operation, it was found that all concerns belonging to the group including the directors, partners, proprietors, etc., are belonging to the native place of Bhawarlal Jain in Rajasthan and known to him. In the statement recorded during th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s obtained accommodation entries from the concerned parties. The Assessing Officer observed, though, the diamond corresponding to the purchase value has entered into to the stock of the assessee which is proved from the sales effected, however, such purchases were made from grey market and not from regular dealers. Accordingly, referring to benign assessment procedure (BAP) as introduced in the budget speech of Finance Minister on 28th February 2007, he estimated the profit @ 8% of the alleged bogus purchases and made addition of an amount of Rs. 81,17,498. The assessee challenged the addition before the first appellate authority. 4. The learned Commissioner (Appeals), though, agreed with the Assessing Officer that assessee was unable to p ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed, in assessee's own case for A.Y. 2009-10 and 2013-14, the Assessing Officer himself has estimated profit at 3% under similar circumstances. In support of his contention, the learned Authorised Representative relied upon the decision of the Tribunal, Mumbai Bench, in Polar Star v/s ACIT, ITA no.5877/Mum./ 2016 and ITA no.6724/Mum./2016, dated 5th September 2017. 6. Learned Departmental Representative relying upon the observations of the Assessing Officer submitted, the assessee having not been able to prove the genuineness of purchases with supporting evidence addition made by the Assessing Officer should be restored. 7. We have heard rival contentions and perused the material available on record. As could be seen, in pursuance to a sea ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... g Officer as bogus. The dispute remains with regard to the source of purchases. For that reason, probably the Assessing Officer has not made addition of the entire purchases but has disallowed 8%. At the same time, in our view, the assessee has not brought any conclusive evidence on record by way of affidavit / confirmation letters from the concerned parties to prove the fact that purchases, indeed, were made from the concerned parties. The assessee has also not volunteered to produce the concerned parties before the Assessing Officer to prove the genuineness of purchases made from them. Thus, in our view, the assessee has also failed to prove the fact that purchases were made from the declared source. Thus, in the aforesaid circumstances, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
