9911796707
Advanced Search 
TMI Blog2019 (12) TMI 593X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . Since, the facts are identical and issues are common, for the sake of convenience, these appeals were heard together and are disposed-off by this consolidated order. 2. The assessee has more or less raised common grounds of appeal for both assessment years. The revenue has also challenged order of the CIT(A) for asst. year 2010-11. The only issue tat came up for our consideration from assessee as well as revenue appeal for both assessment years is addition towards alleged bogus purchases. Therefore, we are of the considered view that there is no need to reproduce grounds of appeals filed by the assessee as well as the revenue. 3. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee is a private limited company engaged in the business of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... submissions, on the issue. The sum and substance of arguments of the assessee before the Ld.CIT(A) are that purchase from the above parties is genuine, which are supported by necessary evidences, including purchase bills, bank statements, ledger confirmation and VAT audit report of the parties specifying the VAT amount in respect of the purchases and quantitative details of goods traded. Therefore, no additions could be made on the basis of information received from third party. The Ld.CIT(A), after considering relevant submission of the assessee and also, on analysis of information collected during the course of search and also by following the decision of Hon'ble Gujarat High Court, in the case of CIT vs. Simith P. Sheth (356 ITR 451) sc ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... des and also, material available on record, we find that both the sides has failed to prove the case in their favour with necessary evidences. Although, assessee had filed certain basic evidences, but failed to file further evidences to conclusively prove purchases to the satisfactions of the Ld.AO. At the same time, the Ld. AO had also failed to take the investigation to a logical conclusion by carrying out necessary enquires, but he solely relied upon information received from investigation wing, which was further supported by information received from Maharashtra Sales Tax Department. Under these circumstances, it is difficult to accept arguments of both the sides. Further, various High Courts and Tribunals had considered an identical is ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... onsiderd an identical issue and considering facts has directed the AO to estimate 2% profit on alleged bogus purchases. The assessee further claims that fact of its case is identical to facts of case considered by the Tribunal in case of Vaishali Prakash Muni vs. ITO(Supra) and hence requested to estimate 2% profit on alleged bogus purchases. We, therefore, considering facts and circumstances of this case and consistent with view taken by the Coordinate Bench in number of cases, including in the case of Vaishali Prakash Muni vs. ITO (Supra) direct the Ld.AO to estimate 2% profit on alleged bogus purchases. Accordingly, we direct the AO to reduce additions to 2% profit on alleged bogus purchases. 7. In the result, appeal filed by the asses ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
