9911796707
TMI Blog2021 (1) TMI 685X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed representative appeared before the Tribunal on the above date. Therefore, considering the non-compliance by the assessee, we are proceeding to dispose off this appeal after examining the materials available on record and after hearing the Ld. Departmental Representative (DR). 2. The grounds of appeal filed by the revenue read as under : 1. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A)has erred in upholding only 30% addition of Rs. 2,66,147/- on the bogus purchases in the case of purchase from Goodluck Impex and Suraj Steel as against the AO's stand of disallowing 100% of the bogus purchases, ignoring the fact that the action of the Assessing Officer was only based on credible information received from the M ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rtment made an addition of Rs. 2,66,147/-. 4. Aggrieved by the order of the AO, the assessee filed an appeal before the Ld. CIT(A). We find that vide order dated 05.04.2019, the Ld. CIT(A) held that : "10.2 On the addition of Rs. 2,92,829/- in case of Suraj Steel and Goodluck Impex where there was information from Sales Tax and notices u/s 133(6) were also returned back, it has been submitted by the appellant that all relevant details like copies of bills, bank statement and delivery challans were filed. Regarding Shree Sai Wirenetting where notices u/s 133(6) returned back, it was submitted that this was a genuine party not appearing in the list of Sales Tax Department. In my considered view, once the AO is unable to verify the trans ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y the Ld. CIT(A), the assessee had filed all relevant details like copies of bills, bank statements and delivery challans. Having considered the above, we are of the considered view that the Ld. CIT(A) has rightly brought to tax the profit element embedded in such disputed purchases by estimating @ 30% on Rs. 2,66,147/- which comes to Rs. 79,844/-. In the case of CIT vs. Simit P. Sheth (2013) 38 taxmann.com (Guj), the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court has held that where purchases were not bogus but were made from parties other than those mentioned in the books of account, not entire purchase price but only profit element embedded in such purchases can be added to income of the assessee. That being the position, not the entire purchase price but ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
