9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (9) TMI 1562X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tal bogus purchases of Rs. 1,14,92,970/-, only 17.5% be treated as bogus purchases. 2. "On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in not providing any opportunity to the AO and additional evidence(s) was admitted in violation to Rule 46A of the I.T. Rules. 3. " On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in applying the ratio of Hon'ble Gujarat High Court decision in the case of CIT vs Simit P. Seth, 356 ITR 451(Guj) and thereby Ld.CIT(A) erred in not appreciating the fact that the assessee failed to substantiate its case with evidence. 4. "On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in not appreciating the fac ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nces and did not press this ground, as a result. We have also gone through the findings recorded by the Ld.CIT(A) and found that no additional evidence has been considered by the Ld.CIT(A) and, therefore, this ground is dismissed. 5. As far as merits of the case are concerned, the brief background of the issue involved is that during the year under consideration, the assessee was engaged in the business of doing job work of dyeing of fabrics and has shown income from job work charges and scrap sales in its P&L account. During the course of assessment proceedings, the Assessing Officer found that in view of the information received from the Investigation Wing of Income-tax Department, Mumbai, the assessee had obtained bogus purchase bills ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f impugned purchases. It was further submitted that the Assessing Officer did not provide any adverse material in support of his allegations. The Ld.CIT(A) considered the submissions of the assessee and documentary evidences submitted by the assessee before the Assessing Officer as well as the Ld.CIT(A) and decided this issue by recording the following findings: 2.15 The facts in the present case shows that the appellant was not in a position to prove the existence of the suppliers. The suppliers were found to be engaged in providing bogus 'bills without actual delivery of goods Moreover few of the Suppliers are hot regular parties and they were found to have been supplied only during the ear and there were no supply either in the ea ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... (17.5% of Rs. 114,92,970!-). The appellant get the relief of the balance Rs,94817001-. The grounds raised are partly Allowed." 6. Thus, from the aforesaid analysis, conclusions and findings recorded by the Ld.CIT(A), it is evident that total purchases were wrongly disallowed by the Assessing Officer. The Ld.CIT(A) took a reasonable view whereby the disallowance was sustained to the extent of estimated inflation in the amount of purchases made by the assessee. The disallowance sustained by the Ld.CIT(A) @17.5% of the purchases have been accepted by the assessee with a view to bury the litigation. Nothing has been brought before us by the Ld.DR to contradict the findings recorded by the Ld.CIT(A). The assessee's counsel has also placed reli ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
