TMI Blog2020 (4) TMI 620X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ch in number of cases, we are of the considered opinion that the Ld. CIT(A) has taken fair view and estimated 12.5% gross profit on alleged bogus purchases to settle dispute between the parties. - ITA Nos. 804 & 805/Mum/2019 - - - Dated:- 12-2-2020 - Shri Saktijit Dey, Judicial Member And Shri G. Manjunatha, Accountant Member For the Appellant : Shri Sourabh Deshpande For the Respondent : None ORDER PER SHRI G. MANJUNATHA- AM: These two appeals filed by the Revenue are directed against common orders of the CIT(A)-36, Mumbai dated 16/11/2018 for the A.Y 2009-10 2010-11. Since, the facts are identical and issue is common, for the sake of convenience, these appeals were heard together and are disposed of by this ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n restricting the addition at 12.5% as against 18% made by the AO, without considering decision of Bombay High Court in the case shoreline Hotel Vs. CIT 98 taxmann. Com 234. 5. The appellant prays that the order of the CIT(A) on the above grounds be set aside and that of the AO be restored. 6. The appellant craves leave to amend or alter any ground or to submit additional new ground which may be necessary 3. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee is engaged in the business of manufacturer of Trophies, filed his return of income for A.Y 2009-10 on 30/09/2009, declaring total income at ₹ 10, 34,120/- and said return was processed u/s 143(1) of the I.T. Act, 1961. The case has been subsequently reopened u/s 147 o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... us purchases to 12.50% gross profit on total purchases from those parties. 5. None appeared for the assessee. We have heard the Ld. DR, perused the material available on record and gone through orders of the authorities below. We find that the Ld. AO has made 18% addition on alleged bogus purchases on the ground that the assessee is one of the beneficiary of accommodation entries of bogus purchase bills issued by Hawala dealers. According to the Ld. AO, although assessee has filed certain basic evidences, but failed to file further evidence in the backdrop of clear finding by the Sales Tax Department, Maharashtra that those parties are involved in providing accommodation entries without actual delivery of goods. The Ld. AO had also taken ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... issue in light of investigation carried out by the Sales Tax Department and held that in case of purchases claims to have made from alleged hawala dealers, only profit element embedded in those purchases needs to be taxed, but not total purchases from those parties. The Hon ble Gujarat High Court, in the case of CIT Vs. Simith P. Sheth 356 ITR 451 had considered a similar issue and held that at the time of estimation of profit from alleged bogus purchase no uniform yardsticks could be adopted, but it depends upon facts of each case. The ITAT, Mumbai, in number of cases had considered an identical issue and depending upon facts of each case, directed the Ld. AO to estimate gross profit of 10% to 15% on total alleged bogus purchases. In t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
