TMI Blog2021 (1) TMI 280X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... er of Income Tax (Appeals) 34, Mumbai [hereinafter in short Ld.CIT(A) ] dated 22.01.2019 for the A.Ys. 2009-10 2010-11 in restricting the addition to 12.5% of purchases as against the disallowance of 25% of purchases as non-genuine/bogus by the Assessing Officer. 2. Briefly stated the facts are that, assessee engaged in the business of Trading and Manufacturing of Dyes and Chemicals, filed return of income on 30.09.2009 and 30.09.2010 declaring income of ₹.3,59,480/- and ₹.4,36,614/- for the A.Ys., 2009-10 and A.Y. 2010-11 respectively. Assessee filed revised return on 30.09.2009 and 25.01.2011 declaring income of ₹.3,59,480/- and ₹.4,48,261/- for the A.Ys., 2009-10 and A.Y.2010-11 respectively and the retur ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... genuineness of the purchases and purchase from the parties to prove claim of the assessee. Assessing Officer observed that the notices issued u/s. 133(6) of the Act to the parties are returned unserved with a remark Left or Not Known and the assessee has not produced the parties before the Assessing Officer. Therefore, Assessing Officer treated 25% of the alleged bogus purchases of ₹.22,34,917/- and ₹.18,32,734/- for the A.Y. 2009-10 and A.Y. 2010-11 respectively as non-genuine and added to the income of the assessee. On appeal the Ld.CIT(A) considering the evidences and various submissions of the assessee restricted the disallowance to an extent of 12.5% of the non-genuine purchases. 4. Inspite of issue of notice none a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... atraj A.Sanghavi (supra). If the bogus purchases are unproved and are declared consumed by appellant itself in its trading, manufacturing or non-trading activities, the entire addition can be made as it only goes to inflate the expenses of the appellant (refer M/s. Shoreline Hotel Pvt. Ltd vs. CIT Central-1 in ITA No. 964/M/2015 darted 19.06.2015). 5.6. In view of the above, it is an admitted fact that Sales Tax Department has conducted search and seizure operation and has established large number of companies/firms/partnership concerns as hawala dealers who are engaged in accommodation entries without actually supplying the goods. The appellant is one of the beneficiary and has received such accommodation bills from two of the hawala ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... justified. Thus the disallowance made by the A.O. is upheld in principle. However, the percentage is restricted from 25% to 12.5%. The ground of appeal filed by the appellant on this issue is therefore, partly allowed. 6. Thus, as a result, the appeal filed by the appellant for the A.Y: 2009-10 is partly allowed u/s. 250 read with section 251 of the Act. B. A.Y.2010-11 (I.T.No.11582): 1.1. The facts and circumstances of this case are absolutely identical to that of A Y 2009-10 except that the bills for bogus purchases in this year are as under: - Sr. No Name of the entity Amount (Rs.) 1. Nirmala Corporation ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
