TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2020 (12) TMI 968
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....400/Mum/2018. AY 2010-11 2. The revenue has raised the following grounds of appeal: "1. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) was justified in not appreciating the law correctly that once the purchases are unverifiable/not genuine/bogus, the same should have been disallowed in entirety. 2. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law by not appreciating the fact that the assessee could not establish the genuineness of the purchases from the non-existent vendors? 3. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law by not appreciating the fact that the onus to justify the claim of ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ubsequently, the A.O had reason to believe that the income has escaped assessment and issued notice u/sec148 of the Act because the assesseefirm has obtained bogus purchase bills from entry operators as per the information received from the sales tax authorities. Subsequently, the A.O. has issued notice u/s 143(2) and 142(1) of the Act along with the questioner to the assessee. In compliance, the Ld. AR of the assessee appeared from time to time and filed the details. The A.O on perusal of auditor's report and balance sheet furnished during in the assessment proceedings, found that the assessee has obtained bogus purchase bills from 7 entities aggregating to Rs. 1,56,26,544/- as per the information received from the Maharashtra Sales Tax De....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ssible prof it out of purchases made through non-genuine parties. In appellant's own case Hon'ble ITAT vide order dated 20.03.2018 ITA No. 4735/Mum/2015 for A.Y 2011- 12 has held as under: 14. Upon careful consideration we find that sales in this case have not been doubted. As held by the Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court Nikunj Eximp Enterprises (in writ petition no 2860, order dt. 18.6.2014) that when sales are not doubted, hundred percent disallowance of purchasers as bogus is not permissible. However the facts of that case were a little different inasmuch as the saleswas to the government departments. Be as it may, we find that in this case, the facts of the case indicate that assessee has engaged into the grey market for making p....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... is disallowed. This addition will be over and above the profits shown by the appellant in his return of income. 5. Aggrieved by the CIT(A) order, the revenue has filed an appeal with the Tribunal. 6. At the time of hearing none appeared on behalf of the assessee. We heard the Ld.DR and considered the material on record. The Ld. DR submitted that the CIT(A) has erred in restricting the disallowance to 12.5% of Bogus purchase bills, irrespective of the fact that the notices u/s 133(6) of the Act were not served on the parties and the assessee has failed to produce parties in the Assessment proceedings and supported the orders of the A.O. 6. We heard the submissions of the Ld. DR and perused the material available on record. We find the so....