TMI Blog2019 (10) TMI 1122X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... On seeing the facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the view that the addition to the extent of 25% of the bogus purchase is very high, therefore, we restrict the addition of bogus purchase to the extent of 12.5% of the bogus purchase. - Decided in favour of the assessee against the revenue. - I.T.A. No.646/Ahd/2017, I.T.A. No.794/Ahd/2017 - - - Dated:- 19-9-2019 - Shri Manish Borad, AM And Shri Amarjit Singh, JM For the Assessee : Shri M. S. Chhajed (AR) For the Revenue : Shri Vinod Tanwani (Sr. DR) ORDER PER AMARJIT SINGH, JM: The Revenue as well as assessee have filed the above mentioned appeals against the order dated 05.01.2017 pass ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 17/2019 dated 08/08/2019 and enhanced monetary limit for filing appeal before appellate Tribunal to ₹ 50,00,000/- . Further, in the said circular, the CBDT had instructed its officer s to file application for withdrawal of appeal already filed or not to pursue pending appeals. We, therefore, by taking into account the CBDT circular No. 3/2018 dated 11-7-2018 and Circular no.17/2019 dated 08/08/2019 and also considering the fact that tax effect involved in the present appeal is less than the amount of monetary limit fixed by the CBDT for not filing appeal, dismissed appeal filed by the revenue as not maintainable. We, further noted that the Co-ordinate bench of ITAT, Ahmedabad A Bench in ITA. No. 1398/Ahd/2004, vide order dated 14/0 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ce. 2. The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in upholding addition to the extent of ₹ 43,53,144/- being 25% of purchase as bogus purchase. 3. The appellant craves liberty to add, alter, modify or amend any or all grounds of appeal before final hearing. 6 . The brief facts of the case are that the assessee filed its return of income on 26.09.2013 declaring total income to the tune of Rs.Nil for the A.Y.2013-14. The assessment of the assessee was reopened under CASS. Notices u/s 143(2) 142(1) of the Act were issued and served upon the assessee. The assessee was in the business of Real Estate Development. During the search action of M/s Trico ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Ld Representative of the Department refuted the said contention. The case of the assessee was reopened upon the information received from the DIT(Inv.), Ahmedabad. The AO raised the addition to the extent of 100% of the total bogus purchase to the income of the assessee and accordingly taxed and the CIT(A) has also restricted the addition to the extent of 25% of the total bogus purchase of the assessee to the tune of ₹ 43,53,144/-. The assessee is in the profession of Real Estate Development. It is settled that 100% of the addition is not justifiable. In this regard, we find support of law settled in case CIT Vs.Nikunj Eximpt Enterprises (P) Ltd. (2013) 216 Taxman 171 (Bom). In case CIT Vs. Simit P. Sheth (2013) 356 ITR 451 (Guj) ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
