TMI Blog2018 (4) TMI 386X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ideration on the basis of the GP of the assessee. Addition of purchases - Held that:- The assessee has placed reliance upon the copy of bill of the Ajay stone. The assessee also placed reliance upon the copy of bills of M/s. Top Brick and Sand suppliers. The assessing officer is hereby directed to examine this fact in the light of the evidence adduced by the assessee by giving an opportunity of being heard to the assessee. Needless to say that if this addition has already been added the assessment year of 2009-10 then the same is not liable to be the part of the total amount to the tune of ₹ 57,96,338/-. The said addition would be double addition. The said amount after verification would be liable to be excluded from the amount of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... heir respective VAT and CST registration number, their existence cannot be denied and hence their refusal to accept summons proves their clandestine act of doing genuine business but defrauding the revenue by fooling the Income-tax department and also pocketing the. VAT recovered from the appellant and many other genuine Purchasers. 4. The appellant submits that the addition made by the Assessing Officer requires to be deleted since the Assessing Officer has failed to rebut the evidence such as delivery note hearing the details of truck number, inward register, proof of payment, etc. produced before him without making any independent enquiry basing the addition only on a report from the VAT authorities in an excel sheet format without ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rtment Maharashtra Government, the assessee has taken hawala entries from various parties for bogus purchase. The assessee was found to purchase the material from seven parties namely Ajay Stone, Top Bricks Sand Suppliers, Moksh Trading Company, Manshi Traders, Rumgt Enterprises, Karni Granimarmo Pvt. Ltd. Alankar Steels total to the tune of ₹ 57,96,338/- The notices u/s 133(6) of the Act were issued which were not served upon the parties. Thereafter, the notice was given to the assessee and after the receipt of the reply, the Assessing Officer added the bogus purchase to the tune of ₹ 57,96,338/- in the income of the assessee. The assessee filed an appeal before the CIT(A) who dismissed the appeal of the assessee, therefore ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... dismissed. It is a case of bogus purchase in which the addition was made on account of information received from the Sales Tax Department, Maharashtra Government. Subsequently, the notices were given to the parties u/s 133(6) of the Act which were not served. The notice was given to the assessee who failed to prove the genuineness of the transaction. Anyhow sale is not disputed and books of account are not rejected. The matter was controversy has been adjudicated by Hon ble Gujarat High Court in the case of Simit P Sheth (2013) 38 taxmann.com 385 (Guj) in which the profit ratio @ 12.5% was taken into consideration on the basis of the GP of the assessee. By following the principle laid down by the Hon ble Gujarat High Court in the case Simit ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ount after verification would be liable to be excluded from the amount of ₹ 57,96,338/- for the purpose of deciding the profit ratio @ 12.5% which has been adjudicated at the time of adjudication upon the issue no. 1 to 4. Accordingly, this issue is decided in favour of the assessee against the revenue. ISSUE NO 6:- 6. Under this issue the assessee has taken the plea of deletion of the adhoc disallowance but the matter of controversy has been adjudicated while deciding the issue nos. 1 to 5 above, therefore, we decide this issue against the assessee in favour of the revenue. ISSUE NO. 7:- 7. Issue no. 7 is formal in nature which nowhere required for adjudication. 8. In result, appeal filed by the assessee ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
