9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (5) TMI 1933X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ade by the appellant from two concerns viz: M/s. Ankit Exports and M/s. Natasha Enterprises are allegedly not genuine and unverifiable. 2. That ld. CIT(A) is further wrong and has erred in law in confirming addition to the extent of 15% of above said alleged unverified purchase to the income of the appellant. The assessee vide its letter dated 05-02-2018 raised following additional ground as Ground No. 3 with the prayer that while filing the appeal in the prescribed Form No. 36, the assessee inadvertently could not raise the additional ground which may kindly be allowed. ''3. The ld. CIT(A) is wrong and has erred in law in upholding the reopening of assessment u/s 147 by issue of notice uu148 as valid in law while the reopening of a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of the alleged supplier. - Payment by account payee cheque is not sacrosanct. (ii) The AO made addition at the rate of 25% of Rs. 2,09,45,850/- i.e. amounting to Rs. 52,36,462/- on account of bogus purchases made by the appellant from the concerns controlled by Shri Jain by relying on the decision of Hon'ble ITAT, Jaipur Bench, Jaipur in case of Trident Jewellers (ITA No. 552/JP/2013 dated 10-07-2013). (iii) During appellate proceedings, the similar contentions as were made before the AO were submitted by the appellant. I agree with the order of AO in treating the purchases made from the two concerns controlled by Shri Jain as bogus as the onus was upon the appellant to prove the genuineness of its purchases claimed to be made ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... bove unverified purchases to the income of the assessee which should be deleted. To this effect, the ld.AR of the assessee also relied on the decision dated 29-01-2018 of ITAT Jaipur Bench in ITA No. 197/JP/2016 for the Assessment Year 2007-08 in the case of Vijay Kedia (HUF) vs ACIT and ITA No.248/JP/2016 in the case of ACIT vs M/s. Vijay Kedia (HUF). 2.3 We have heard the rival contentions and perused the materials available on record. The assessee had shown purchases of Rs. 2,09,45,850/- from two concerns namely M/s. Ankit Exports (Rs. 59,45,850/-) and M/s. Natasha Enterprises (Rs. 1,50,00,000/-), Mumbai. These purchases were from the concerns controlled by Shri Praveen Jain who is the key persons of these companies engaged in providin ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nuineness of purchases from these concerns. The assessee could not prove the genuineness of the purchases. The AO made the addition of Rs. 52,36,462/- (i.e. 25% of the total purchases of Rs. 2,09,45,850/-). The ld. CIT(A) has restricted the disallowance to the extent of 15% in view of the decision of ITAT Jaipur bench in the case of Shri Anuj Kumar Varshney vs ITO and others (ITA No.187/JP/2012 dated 22-10-2014). Since the ITAT, Jaipur Bench has already taken the decision of confirming the addition of 15% on unverifiable purchases in the similar line of cases, therefore, we concur with the findings of the ld. CIT(A). Thus the Ground No. 1 & 2 of the assessee are dismissed. 3.1 Apropos Ground No. 3, the facts as emerges from the order of t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Rs. 88,664/- on 13th of Feb. 2006, which was processed u/s 143(1) of the I.T. Act. The proviso prescribes that no action should be taken u/s 147 after the expiry of four years from the end of relevant Assessment Year, unless any income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment order for such Assessment Year by reason of the failure on the part of the assessee to disclose fully and truly all material facts necessary for the assessment. Therefore, it was required to be examined whether the disclosure was full and true of all material facts by the assessee when the return was filed or when the assessment was made. The information which was received after the search operation was new information which was not revealed by the assessee and that in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e assessee prayed that the proceedings u/s 148 of the Act and consequent made on the assessee u/s 148/143(3) of the Act is wrong and bad in law which should be quashed. 3.3 On the other hand, the ld. DR supported the orders of the lower authorities. 3.4 We have heard the rival contentions and perused the materials available on record. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee is engaged in the business of gold and diamond jewellery. The AO had information in his possession that the assessee had taken accommodation entries from Shri Praveen Kumar Jain group who himself admitted in his statement recorded u/s 132(4) of the Act that he is providing accommodation entries for commission. He was issuing bogus invoices to the needy parties ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
