TMI Blog2020 (8) TMI 264X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... te of gross profit with necessary evidences or any comparable cases. We are of the considered opinion that 12.50% rate of profit adopted by the CIT(A) appears to be reasonable and accordingly, we are inclined to uphold the findings of the CIT(A) and reject grounds taken by the Revenue. Adhoc disallowances of various expenses - CIT(A) has recorded categorical findings that the AO has not given any specific reason for making adhoc disallowances of expenses - HELD THAT:- Revenue fails to bring on record any evidences to prove the findings of facts recorded by the CIT(A) is incorrect. Therefore, we are of the considered view that there is no error in the findings of the CIT(A) and hence, we are inclined to uphold order of the ld. CIT(A) an ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... directing the A.O. and had deleted the ad-hoc addition of ₹ 30,000/- u/s 69C Claimed by the assesee on self made vouchers .Hence, the same is not acceptable (relief of ₹ 30,000/-), without appreciating the fact that assessee had failed to discharge the onus to establish the genuine of the transactions and also failed to furnish corroborative evidences in support of his claim. 3. The appellant prays that the order of Ld.CIT(A) on the above grounds be reversed and that of the AO be restored. 3. The brief facts of the case as culled out from Asst. Year 2009- 10 are that the assessee is a Partnership Firm, which is engaged in the business of manufacturing engineering goods and labour job work has filed its return of inco ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e basis of information received from third party. The Ld.CIT(A), after considering relevant submission of the assessee and also, by following the decision of Hon ble Gujarat High Court, in the case of CIT vs. Simith P. Sheth (356 ITR 451) has scaled down addition made by the ld. AO to 12.50% profit on alleged total bogus purchases from those parties. The ld. CIT(A) has also deleted adhoc addition of various expenses of ₹ 30,000/- on the ground that the AO has not given any specific reason for making such disallowances. 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 along with case laws cited by both parties. As regards, addition ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ove purchases to the satisfactions of the Ld.AO. Further, mere payment by cheque does not prove the genuineness of purchase, more particularly when other circumstantial evidence says otherwise. At the same time, the Ld. AO had also failed to take the investigation to a logical conclusion by carrying out necessary enquires, but he solely relied upon information received from investigation wing, which was further supported by information received from Maharashtra Sales Tax Department. The AO neither pointed out any discrepancies in books of accounts nor made out a case of sales outside books of accounts. In fact, the AO did not disputed sales declared for the year. Under these circumstances, it is difficult for us to accept arguments of both ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 2.50% rate of profit adopted by the ld. CIT(A) appears to be reasonable and accordingly, we are inclined to uphold the findings of the ld. CIT(A) and reject grounds taken by the Revenue. 7. The next issue that came up for our consideration from ground no. 2 of Revenue is deletion of adhoc disallowances of various expenses of ₹ 30,000/-. The ld. CIT(A) has recorded categorical findings that the AO has not given any specific reason for making adhoc disallowances of expenses. On the other hand, the assessee has filed all details before the AO. The facts remain unchanged. The Revenue fails to bring on record any evidences to prove the findings of facts recorded by the ld. CIT(A) is incorrect. Therefore, we are of the considered view th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
