TMI Blog2018 (4) TMI 1217X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n the GP shown in the immediately preceding Assessment year. Thus we modify the order of lower authorities and direct the AO to upheld addition of 2% of bogus purchases. - Decided partly in favour of assessee - ITA No.4774/Mum/2014 And ITA No.5116/Mum/2014 - - - Dated:- 23-8-2017 - SHRI R.C.SHARMA, AM AND SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN, JM For The Assessee : Shri Bhupendra Karkhanis For The Revenue : Shri V. Vidhyadhar ORDER PER R.C.SHARMA (A.M): These are the cross appeals filed by the assessee and revenue against the order of CIT(A)-23, Mumbai dated 09/05/2014 for A.Y.2010-11 in the matter of order passed u/s.143(3) of the IT Act. 2. Grievance of assessee and revenue relates to addition / deletion made on a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... substantiate the genuineness of transaction. Learned AR further contended that Sales of the assessee are undisputed. Sales are accepted in total. Books of account were found to be satisfactory. No allegation of any deficiency or defects in books of account. Quantitative details of purchases from M/s.Sai International Impex. Matching of Quantity-wise purchases sales are provided to the department. The assessee maintains stock record for each Metric Ton of steel purchased and sold during the year. Gross profit margin for the year is 0.15%. Comparison of gross profit ratio also proves that there is no inflation in the purchases price. GP ratio of the assessment year under consideration as compared to immediately preceding year is as under:- ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ) (ITAT Mumbai) 11. DCIT vs. Rajeev G. Kalathil 67 SOT 52 (ITAT Mumbai) 12. CIT v Hi Lux Automotive (P.) Ltd. (2009) 23 DTR 385 / 183 Taxman 260 (Del)(HC) 13. Babulal C Borana 282 ITR 251 (Bom) 14.Totaram Sharma vs. ITO Ward-6(4) (gujarat High Court) ((Tax Appeal No. 1344 of 2008 with Tax Appeal No. 1355 of 2008) 15. Romila M. Nagpal (ITANo. 6388/Mum/2016) 16. ITO vs. Paresh Arvind Gandhi (ITA No. 5706/Mum/2013) 17. Dy. CIT v. Adinath Industries [2001] 252 ITR 4762 (Guj.) 18. CIT v. M.K. Bros. [1987] 163 ITR 249 (Guj.) 19. M/s. Geolife Organics vs. ACIT - 23(2) ITA No. 3699/M/2016 9. On the other hand learned DR contended that all the invoices were prepared by only 2 persons, that to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... %. Thus, it is not the case where assessee has shown lower G.P. in respect of alleged bogus purchases. In the immediately preceding Assessment Year, the GP shown by the assessee on the entire sale was 0.14%. Thus, it is clear that GP shown by the assessee during the year under consideration is better than the GP shown in the immediately preceding Assessment year. 12. In view of the above discussion and keeping in view the totality of facts and circumstances of the case, we modify the order of lower authorities and direct the AO to upheld addition of 2% of bogus purchases. We direct accordingly. 13. In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed whereas the appeal of the assessee is allowed in part. Order pronounced in the op ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
