9911796707
TMI Blog2020 (8) TMI 264X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... heard together and are disposed-off by this consolidated order. 2. The Revenue has, more or less raised common grounds of appeal for both assessment years. Therefore, for the sake of convenience, grounds of appeals filed for the Asst. year 2009-10 are reproduced as under: 1. " On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in directing the A.O. in restricting the addition to 12.5% of Rs. 3,41,032/- as against 100% addition made by the AO on account of bogus purchases, 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. 2. "On the facts and circumstances of the ca ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... for scrutiny and the assessment has been completed u/s. 143(3).r.w.s. 147 of the I.T.Act, 1961 on 30/09/2014 and determined total income of Rs. 8,52,390/-, after making 100% addition on alleged bogus purchase from those parties amounting to Rs. 3,41,032/-, penalty paid to BMC of Rs. 37,000/- and adhoc disallowance of various expenses of Rs. 30,000/-. 4. Being aggrieved by the assessment order, the assesee preferred an appeal before the Ld.CIT(A). Before the Ld.CIT(A), the assessee has filed details of purchases and other expenses. The sum and substance of arguments of the assessee before the Ld.CIT(A) are that purchase from the above party is genuine, which is supported by necessary evidences. Therefore, no additions could be made on the b ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... es. 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 purchases have been made through proper banking channels. 6. Having considered arguments of ld. DR and also, considering material available on record, we find that both the sides have failed to prove the case in their favour with necessary evidences. Although, assessee has filed certain basic evidences, but failed to file further evidences to conclusively prove purchas ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n 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 this case, considering the nature of business of the assessee the Ld. AO has made 100% addition, whereas the ld. CIT(A) has scaled down addition to 12.50% profit on alleged bogus purchases. Although, both authorities have taken different rate of profit for estimation of income from alleged bogus purchase, but no one could support said rate of gross profit with necessary evidences or any comparable cases. Therefore, considering the 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 12.50% rate ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
