9911796707
TMI Blog2020 (4) TMI 620X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rounds of appeal for both asst. Years. Therefore, for the sake of brevity, grounds of appeal filed in ITA 804/Mum/2019 for A.Y 2009-10 are reproduced as under: 1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in restricting the addition at 12.5% as against 18% made by the AO, pertaining to Hawala Purchases, notwithstanding that there is a specific finding of Sales Tax Department that the parities from whom purchases were allegedly made had issued false bills without delivery of goods, and none of these parties were available at their address when verification letter u/s 133(6) of the Act were issued. 2. On the facts and circumstance of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in restricting the addi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Sales Tax Authorities of Government of Maharastra had taken actions against number of Hawala dealers, who had issued bogus purchase bills to various parties in Mumbai and other places. As per list of beneficiaries, the assessee is one of the beneficiary, who had taken accommodation bills of bogus purchases from various parties as listed by the AO in his assessment order amounting to Rs. 11,51,619/-. The case was selected for scrutiny and the assessment has been completed u/s. 143(3) r.w.s. 147 of the Act, 1961 on 10/03/2016 and determined total income of Rs. 12,41,420,/-, after making 18% profit additions towards alleged bogus purchases from those parties and made additions of Rs. 2,07,291/-. 4. Aggrieved by the assessment order, the asse ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed u/s 133(6) to the parties were returned un-served by the postal authorities. Therefore, he came to the conclusion that purchases from the said parties are bogus in nature. It is the contentions of the assessee before the lower authorities that purchases from the above party are supported by necessary evidences. It has furnished all possible evidences, including books of accounts; stock details and bank statement to prove that payment against said purchase have been made through proper banking channels. 6. Having considered arguments of the Ld. DR and also, material available on record, we find that both the side have failed to prove the case in their favour with necessary evidences. Although, assessee has filed certain basic evidences, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Ld. CIT(A) has scaled down addition to 12.50% gross profit on total alleged bogus purchase. Although, both authorities have taken different rate of profit for estimation of income from alleged bogus purchase, b7ut no one could support said rate of gross profit with necessary evidences or any comparable cases. Therefore, considering facts and circumstances of this case and consistent with view taken by the Co-ordinate Bench 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 and hence, we are inclined to uphold order of the Ld. CIT(A) and dismiss appeal filed by the Revenue. ITA No. 805/Mum/2019 for AY ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
