9911796707
TMI Blog2020 (8) TMI 310X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Rs. 17,00,995/- on account of purchase from non-genuine purchases parties." 3. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee is engaged in the business of trading in Ferrous and Non-ferrous metal, filed its return of income for AY 2009-10 on 27/09/2009, declaring total income of Rs. 66,683/-. The case has been subsequently, reopened u/s 147 of the Act, on the basis of information received from DGIT, investigation, Mumbai, as per which, Sales Tax Authorities of Government of Maharashtra 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 purcha ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 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 support from the investigation conducted during the course of assessment proceedings, as per which notice issued 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 purcha ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... imilar issue and held that at the time of estimation of profit from alleged bogus purchases 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 this case, considering the nature of business of the assessee the Ld. AO has made 12.50% additions, which has been confirmed by the Ld. CIT(A). Although, both authorities have taken uniform 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. Further, the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
