9911796707
TMI Blog2020 (12) TMI 767X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 1961 (hereinafter referred to as Act) dated 29/03/2014 by the ld. Dy.CIT-Rg.13(1), Mumbai (hereinafter referred to as ld. AO). 1.1. As identical issues are involved in both the appeals, they are taken up together and disposed off by this common order for the sake of convenience. 1.2. None appeared on behalf of the assessee. With the consent of the ld. DR, the appeal of the revenue for A.Y.2007-08 is taken up as the lead case and the decision rendered thereon would apply with equal force for A.Y.2008-09 in view of the identical facts except with variance in figures. 2. The only effective issue to be decided in this appeal is as to whether the ld. CIT(A) was justified in restricting the disallowance made on account of unverifiable purchas ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y to the ld. AO that the return already filed may be treated as the return in response to the notice u/s.148 of the Act and sought for reasons recorded for reopening which was duly supplied to the assessee. 3.2. We find that the assessee had furnished the names and address of the aforesaid suppliers, details of products purchased, VAT registration, addresses of suppliers, purchase bills and copies of bank statements, evidencing the payments being made by account payee cheques to those suppliers before the ld. AO. However, the ld. AO observed that assessee was not able to produce any evidence to prove the actual movement of goods from these suppliers in the form of transportation receipts, lorry receipts, gate pass etc., The ld. AO also obs ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... fact that the assessee had indeed made sales out of the disputed purchases and hence, it could be safely presumed that the assessee could have only made purchases from the grey market in order to have some saving in indirect taxes and incidental profits thereon. We find that the ld. CIT(A) had also placed reliance on the Co-ordinate Bench of this Tribunal in the case of Mercury International referred to supra wherein under identical facts and circumstances, this Tribunal had restricted the profit element embedded in the value of disputed purchases at 3%. We find that the ld. DR before us was not able to provide any other contrary decision before us. Hence, we do not find any infirmity in the order of the ld. CIT(A) and accordingly, the gro ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
