9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (10) TMI 1795X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 961 (the Act) concerning assessment year 2009-10. 2. By way of its grounds of appeal, the assessee has raised solitary grievance towards addition on account of alleged bogus purchase amounting to Rs. 1,28,53,148/-. 3. The assessee, a proprietor of M/s. Shagun Art, filed its return of income for AY 2009-10 which was subsequently reopened under s.148 of the Act. In the course of re-assessment proceedings, the AO noted that the assessee is engaged in the business of sale of gift articles. The AO observed that as per information received from VAT/Sales Tax Department, Mumbai, the assessee has received bogus bills of purchase from various parties aggregating to Rs. 1,28,53,148/-. When confronted, the assessee responded by submitting that it ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... when the purchases are deemed to be bogus as alleged by the AO, the corresponding sale and book result would be totally absurd and inexplicable. Without the purchase of the trading item as recorded, it is impossible to clock the corresponding sale of such amount. The sale consideration made to the reputed parties, like, Asian Paints Ltd. and the sales in any case have not been doubted. The learned AR thereafter referred to the trading and P&L account and submitted that it has declared profits at 7.31% of the turnover including similar profits on sale corresponding to alleged bogus purchases. The learned AR submitted that in such a fact-situation, where the assessee has already declared handsome profits on sales corresponding to purchase of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... evenue authorities. The cross examination of the suppliers was not provided despite requests. In these circumstances, we find considerable merit in the case of the assessee in the light of the decision of the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in Gujarat Ambuja Exports (supra); CIT vs. Bholanath Poly Fab Pvt. Ltd. 355 ITR 290 (Guj) and the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of PCIT vs. Tejua Rohitkumar Kapadia arising out of the decision of the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in Tax Appeal No.691 of 2017, judgment dated 18.09.2017. In view of the facts recorded, it is difficult to dispute the quantitative aspects of the purchases made. This leaves us to the limited aspect of pricing of alleged bogus purchase. Having regard to the facts an ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
