TMI Blog2018 (4) TMI 255X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... It is not required to be seen whether the whole addition is required on the part of the assessee or not u/s 69C. See COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX-I Versus SIMIT P SHETH [2013 (10) TMI 1028 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT] End of justice would be met if, the 12.5% of the gross profit ratio of the bogus purchase is liable to be taken into consideration. See COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX-I Versus SIMIT P SHETH [2013 (10) TMI 1028 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT] - We set aside the finding of the CIT(A) on this issue and restricted the addition of bogus purchase to the extent of 12.5% - Decided partly in favour of assessee. - I.T.A. No.4695/Mum/2015 And CO. No.64/Mum/2017 - - - Dated:- 28-3-2018 - SHRI G. S. PANNU, AM AND SHRI AMARJIT SINGH, JM For The Revenue ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Dipak M. Parekh in the documents submitted by the assessee as forged. 4. On the facts and in circumstances of the case, andin the law, the Ld. CIT(A) has failed to appreciate that during the course of assessment proceedings the assessee has filed different addresses of the supplier by the name of M/s. Shreeji Enterprises which were all found to be fictitious by AO on enquiry. 5. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in the law, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in placing reliance on the decision the Gujarat High Court in the case of CIT vs. Simit P. Sheth O/TAXAP/552/2012 tax appeal no. 533 of 2012 dated 16/01/2013 (356 ITR 4516) and ITAT, Ahmedabad in the case of M/s. Vijay Proteins Ltd. 58 ITD 428, which were not relevant to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... CD along with audited Profit and Loss Account and Balance-Sheet. Assessee also submitted the ledger account of parties from whom he purchased the goods. The assessee failed to furnish the ledger account of one parties namely M/s. Shreeji Enterprises. The noticed was given to M/s. Shreeji Enterprises who send the letter dated 13.02.2014 by informing that M/s. Shreeji Enterprises have entered transaction with M/s. Krishna Trading Co. 40/42, Vithalwadi, Near L.K. Market, Kalbadevi Road, Mumbai for an amount of ₹ 3,61,285/- and not with M/s. Vipinkumar Bros, Prop. Kiritkumar S. Mehta. Accordingly, notice was given to the assessee and the assessee furnished another address of M/s. Shreeji Enterprises i.e., Vile Parle, Mumbai-56, therefor ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... efore, purchases to the tune of ₹ 1,33,05,834/- is not liable to be disallowed in view of the provision u/s 69C of the Act. It is also argued that the gross profit ratio of the preceding year are liable to be considered for the addition in view of the law settled in M/s. Vijay Proteins Ltd. 58 ITD 428 and Simit P. Sheth 356 ITR 451. Therefore, the finding of the CIT(A) is wrong against law and facts and is liable to be set aside. However, on the other hand, the Ld. Representative of the Department has refuted the said contentions and argued that the present case is not a case of information received from the DGIT Inv. wherein certain parties were found involved in the bogus sale and purchases but it is a case in which bogus purchase h ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 31.03.09 77,39,481/- 8,22,223/- 10.62% 2,80,527/- 3.62% 3 31.03.10 7,73,60,999/- 27,99,258/- 3.62% 8,63,885/- 1.12% 4 31.03.11 7,54,70,752/- 29,30,056/- 3.88% 9,10,782/- 1.21% 5 31.03.12 7,25,28,962/- 29,02,482/- 4.00% 4,56,430/- 0.63% 6 31.03.13 7,74,96,140/- ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
