TMI Blog2020 (11) TMI 739X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... one by the assessee and the other by the Revenue are directed against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-34, Mumbai and [in short CIT(A) ] and arise out of the assessment completed u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 147 of the Income Tax Act 1961 (the Act ). As common issues are involved, we are proceeding to dispose them off by this consolidated order for the sake of convenience. ITA No. 1853/MUM/2019 Assessment Year: 2009-10 2. The grounds of appeal filed by the assessee read as under : 1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the CIT(A), has erred in confirming the disallowance on account of purchases from alleged suspicious dealers to the extent of ₹ 7,59,122/- being 12. 5% of the purchases made from ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t of purchases made from M/s Maulik Corporation, however assessee did not furnish details of payment made to the said party even in subsequent years. 3. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law the Ld. CIT(A) failed to appreciate the fact that onus is one the assessee to explain and substantiate the genuineness and true nature of purchase transactions in which the assessee failed during original assessment proceedings. 4. The appellant prays that appeal is being filed because it is covered under the exception provided in para 10(e) of the amended instruction no.3 of 2018 dated 20.08.2018. 4. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the assessee filed his return of income for the assessment year (AY) ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... iny proceedings, assessee was unable to substantiate the payment to this party, even in the subsequent years. The question asked vide order sheet noting dt. 24.03.2015 is placed on records. It is further pertinent to mention here that the same party was kept in Balance Sheet as creditors till A.Y. 2011-12. In view of this fact, the entire claim of purchase from M/s. Maulik Steel Corporation of ₹ 29,98,636/-and 12.5% of claim of purchase from M/s. Vaishali Enterprises i.e. 12.5% of 30,74,342/-, which works out to ₹ 3,84,293/- is disallowed and added back to the total income of the assessee. The total disallowance, therefore, works out to ₹ 33,82,929/- (₹ 29,98,636 + ₹ 3,84,293), which is added back to the tot ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... and voucher of number of concerns were found. Accordingly, the purchases made from these concerns were treated as bogus by the AO and the entire deposits in bank accounts of these parties were treated as assessee s income on protective basis. On appeal, the ITAT restricted the addition on account of alleged bogus purchases at 25% i.e. ₹ 73,23,322/- of the total purchases amounting to ₹ 2,92,93,288/-. On further appeal, the Hon ble High Court modified the order of the Tribunal and directed for addition of entire bogus purchases. After hearing the counsels, the Hon ble Supreme Court dismissed the SLP filed by the assessee and confirmed the decision of the High Court for addition of entire income on account of bogus purchases. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... % varies from item to item. Going by the fact that this material might have been purchased by assessee from grey market at a lower purchase price some element of profit is earned. Hence, a reasonable estimate can be made. Hence, I estimate the profit rate at the rate of 8% of the bogus purchases and direct the Assessing Officer to recompute the income accordingly. 6. Similarly, in ITA NOs. 1855 1856/Mum/2019 for Assessment Year 2011- 12 2010-11 respectively, wherein the facts and circumstances are exactly identical and hence, taking a consistent view in these two appeals also, I estimate the profit rate at the rate of 8% and Assessing Officer is directed accordingly. The appeals of assessee are partly allowed as indicated above. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
