TMI Blog2019 (5) TMI 696X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Ltd. had never sold any goods and were only issuing bogus sale invoices and charged commission. CIT(A) and ITAT have noted the request of the appellant for permitting cross examination of the Director of the said company Shri Praveen Kumar Jain of M/s. JPK Trading (I) Pvt. Ltd. Tribunal that the Assessing Officer taking resort to various case laws made the trading addition of ₹ 5,24,240/- by disallowing 25% of unverifiable purchases of ₹ 20,96,965/-. CIT(A), however, reduced the trading addition to ₹ 5,24,240/- by relying on the judgement of the ITAT Jaipur Bench dated 22.10.2014 in Anuj Kumar Varshney vs. ITO [ 2015 (4) TMI 533 - ITAT JAIPUR] . The CIT(A) has also upheld the earlier orders by dismissing the appeal ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ee was partly allowed. That appeal was filed by the assessee against the assessment order dated 31.10.2004. The assessee-appellant filed income tax return on 31.10.2007 declaring total income of ₹ 13,76,920. Subsequently, proceedings u/s.147 were initiated and the assessment was completed u/s.147/143(3) of the Act at an income of ₹ 19,01,160 on 31.10.2014. The assessee preferred appeal thereagainst. The CIT(Appeal) vide order dated 1.7.2016 partly allowed the appeal. The CIT(Appeal) has held that 15% of unverifiable/bogus purchases is to be added to the income of the appellant and therefore out of the addition of ₹ 5,24,240 made by the Assessing Officer, the addition to the extent of ₹ 3,14,545/-, addi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... g order. I is argued that the order passed by the Tribunal is contrary to the settled proposition of law. Perusal of the order passed by the Tribunal dated 9.2.2018 indicates that the Investigation Wing, Mumbai had conducted search and seizure operation over the group concern of Shri Praveen Kumar Jain. It was established by the Investigation Wing that assessee was indulged in bogus bills to the needy person without actual delivery of goods. This fact was established on the basis of evidence recorded by the Investigation Wing. The Investigation Wing of the department recorded the statement of Shri Praveen Kumar Jain who is running bogus concern in the name and style of M/s.JPK Trading (I) Pvt. Ltd. He stated th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... upon the assessee. Copy of reasons recorded were supplied to the assessee alongwith notice u/s.142(1) and notice u/s.143(2) dated 21.4.2014. The Assessing Officer on examination of purcahse details noted that the assessee had shown purchases from M/s. JPK Trading Pvt. Ltd. Amounting to ₹ 20,96,965/-. However, as per the statement of Shri Praveen Kumar Jain, it was found that M/s. JPK Trading Pvt. Ltd. had never sold any goods and were only issuing bogus sale invoices and charged commission. The CIT(A) and ITAT have noted the request of the appellant for permitting cross examination of the Director of the said company Shri Praveen Kumar Jain of M/s. JPK Trading (I) Pvt. Ltd. It was noted by the Tribunal t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
