TMI Blog2020 (4) TMI 365X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... dition by estimating profit percentage at the rate of 3% on bogus purchases, is correct. - Decided against revenue. - I.T.A. No. 6259/Mum/2018 - - - Dated:- 29-1-2020 - Shri Saktijit Dey, AM And Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, AM For the Appellant : Shri Kumar Padmapani Bohra, DR For the Respondent : Ms. Aarti Vissanji, AR ORDER PER S. RIFAUR RAHMAN (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER): The present appeal has been filed by the revenue against the order of Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-30, Mumbai, in short Ld. CIT(A) dated 16.08.18 for AY 2014-15. 2. The brief facts of the case are that assessee is engaged in trading of rough and polished diamonds. The return of income for the year under appeal was filed on 29.11.2014 dec ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... lowed the appeal filed by the assessee. 4. Now before us, the revenue has preferred the appeal by raising the grounds of appeal as under:- 1) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld.CIT(A) has erred in restricting the addition on account of bogus purchases @ 3% on total purchases of ₹ 9,23,99,829/- as the profit element embedded in these purchases, overlooking that the alleged suppliers were admittedly engaged only in giving accommodation entries to several parties including the assessee? 2) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld.CIT(A) has erred in presuming that purchase have been made from unknown parties whereas bills have been received from ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... - as the profit element embedded in these purchases, overlooking that the alleged suppliers were admittedly engaged only in giving accommodation entries to several parties including the assessee. 7. We have heard counsels for both the parties and we have also perused the material placed on record as well as the orders passed by revenue authorities. We find that the identical ground raised in the present appeal has already been decided by the Coordinate Bench of ITAT in cross appeal filed by the assessee in ITA No. 6029/Mum/2018 for the same AY 2014-15 in assessee s own case, wherein the Hon ble ITAT has dismissed the appeal on the grounds of merit. For the sake of clarity, which is reproduced below:- 6. We have heard the rival conten ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... action, had admitted that they were only dummies and the concerns were as a matter of fact managed and controlled by Shri. Bhanwarlal Jain and his family members;(ii) the said concerns were only providing accommodation bills and not carrying on any genuine business transactions; and (ii) assessee had failed to substantiate the genuineness and veracity of the purchases claimed to have been made from the aforesaid parties on the basis of irrefutable documentary evidences. We have given a thoughtful consideration to the facts before us and are of the considered view that the A.O had rightly concluded that the purchases claimed by the assessee to have been made from the aforesaid dummy concerns could safely be characterized as bogus. We are of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of the assessee to 3% of the aggregate value of the bogus purchases which were claimed to have been made from the aforesaid parties. We have given a thoughtful consideration to the facts of the case and are persuaded to be in agreement with the view taken by the CIT(A). We thus being of the considered view that the CIT(A) had fairly concluded that the addition in respect of the purchases which were claimed by the assessee to have been made from the aforementioned bogus concerns, viz.(i)Mohit Enterprise; (ii) Mayur Exports; and(iii) Prime Star, were liable to be restricted to 3% of the aggregate value of the purchases, therefore, find no reason to dislodge his well-reasoned order. We thus, in the backdrop of our aforesaid observations, find ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
