TMI Blog2018 (7) TMI 1406X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tand modified to that extent. - I.T.A. Nos.1372 to 1375/Mum/2018 - - - Dated:- 20-7-2018 - SHRI SAKTIJIT DEY, JM AND SHRI MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL, AM For The Assessee : Rushabh Mehta, Ld. AR For The Revenue : Ram Tiwari, Ld. DR ORDER Per Bench 1. Aforesaid appeals by assessee for Assessment Years [AY] 2007- 08 to 2010-11 contest common order of Ld. Commissioner of Income- Tax (Appeals)-42 [CIT(A)], Mumbai, Appeal No.CIT(A)-42/IT-83 to 86/15- 16 dated 30/11/2017. The common grievance of assessee, in all the appeals, is addition on account of certain alleged bogus purchases. The assessee has also contested the reassessment proceedings on legal grounds. First, we take up appeal for 2007-08. ITA 1372/M ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... al, the proprietor of the aforesaid firm and his statement was recorded on 19/02/2015 wherein the said party admitted to have made bogus purchases from certain parties. It was also found out that the aforesaid party was not maintaining any stock record or transportation bill etc. to demonstrate movement of goods. 2.4 The assessee, vide letter dated 26/02/2015 defended the purchases made by him. However, not convinced, Ld. AO, on the basis of GP rate already declared by the assessee, estimated addition against the same @17% which resulted into impugned additions of ₹ 4.92 Lacs in the hands of the assessee. 3. Aggrieved, the assessee contested the same on legal grounds as well as on merits without any success before Ld. CIT ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Name of the assessee: RAJENDRA KUMAR BIYANI PAN: AABPB1591L A.Y.: 2007-08 Reason for Reopening Return of income for A.Y. 2007-08 was filed by the assessee on 31.10.2007 declaring total income of ₹ 2,08,079/- Subsequently, it is informed by the office of the Director General of Income Tax (Inv), Mumbai vide letter No. Corr. Field/DGIT(Inv)2013-14, dated 26/12/2013, that the assessee is one of the beneficiaries of billers (hawala operators) and had purchased goods/material from the following parties in the F.Y. 2006-07 relevant to A.Y. 2007-08 amounting to ₹ 28,96,162/-. These parties are in the list of suspicious dealers published by the Sales Tax Department, Govt. Of Maharastra. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ver achieved by the assessee has not been disputed by the revenue and the payments were through banking channels. The assessee was in possession of primary purchase documents. However, at the same time, as noted by Ld. first appellate authority, the delivery of material was under doubt since the documents did not bear any transportation details etc. and secondly, the assessee was not maintaining adequate stock records regarding consumption of material. The assessee has also placed on record assessment orders of Arun Agarwal (alleged bogus supplier) to contend that the sale reflected by the aforesaid party has been accepted by the revenue and therefore the assessee s purchases are also genuine. However, a perusal of the order for AY 2007-0 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d modified to that extent. This ground as well as the appeal stand partly allowed. ITA 1373 to 1375 /Mum/2018 for AY 2008-09 to 2010-11 8. In AY 2008-09, the assessee has been saddled with similar additions of ₹ 7.88 Lacs against aggregate purchases of ₹ 46,38,596/- stated to be made from the same supplier. Factual matrix being the same, we restrict the impugned additions to 5% which comes to ₹ 2,31,930/-. The appeal stands partly allowed. 9. In AY 2009-10, the assessee has been saddled with similar additions of ₹ 8.55 Lacs against aggregate purchases of ₹ 50,31,452/- stated to be made from the two suppliers. Factual matrix being the same, we restrict the impugned additions to 5% which comes to &# ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
