TMI Blog2021 (1) TMI 1017X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sales or formed part of its closing stock for the year under consideration. In case the assessee is able to demonstrate before the A.O that the impugned purchases were either accounted for in its sales or formed part of its closing stock for the year under consideration, then, the scaling down of the disallowance by the CIT(A) to 4% of the aggregate value of the impugned purchases would be in order. Appeal filed by the revenue is allowed for statistical purposes. - ITA No. 4155/Mum/2019 (Assessment Year: 2009-10) - - - Dated:- 14-12-2020 - Shri M. Balaganesh, Accountant Member And Shri Ravish Sood, Judicial Member Appellant by: Ms. Sh reekala Pardeshi, D.R. Respondent by: Shri G.C Lalka, A.R ORDER PER RAVISH SOOD, JM The present appeal filed by the revenue is directed against the order passed by the CIT(A)-45, Mumbai, dated 25.03.2019 which in turn arises from the assessment order passed by the A.O under Sec. 143(3) r.w.s 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short Act ), dated 27.03.2015 for A.Y. 2009-10. The revenue has assailed the impugned order on the following grounds of appeal before us : 1. On the fact s and in the circumstances of the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 43,02,730/- 6. DK Enterprises 10,18,161/- 7. Navdeep Trading Corporation 24,17,905/- 8. Grifton India Ridhi Enterprise 37,11,809/- 9. Siddhi Enterprises 16,87,140/- 10. Ghatalia Steels 38,32,820/- 11. Ashirwad Expo 23,78,202/- Total 2,60,02,507/- It was further observed by the A.O that purchases relatable to 5 parties (out of 11 parties), viz. Manav Impex (Sr. No. 2), Navdeep Trading Corpn. (Sr. No. 7), Siddi Enterprises (Sr. No. 9), Ghatalia Sales (Sr. No. 10) and Ashirwad Exp (Sr. No. 11) were already considered by his predecessor while framing the regular assessment vide his order passed u/s 143(3), dated 23.12.2011 and an addition @1% of the turnover was made. Accordingly, the A.O confining himself to the purchases aggregating to ₹ 1,21,34,099/- claimed by the assessee to have been ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d by the ld. D.R that unlike as in A.Y 2010-11, during the year under consideration i.e A.Y 2009-10 the assessee had failed to show that the sales correlating to the impugned purchases claimed to have been made from the hawala parties were duly accounted for in its books of accounts. It was the claim of the ld. D.R that in the absence of any material on record which would evidence that the impugned bogus purchases booked by the assessee were either accounted for in its sales or formed part of its closing stock, the A.O, had rightly concluded that the entire value of the said purchases was liable to be disallowed. On the basis of her aforesaid contentions it was averred by the ld. D.R that the order of the CIT(A) be set aside and that of the A.O be restored. 6. Per contra, the ld. Authorized Representative (for short A.R ) for the assessee relied on the order of the CIT(A). It was submitted by the ld. A.R that the CIT(A) following the view that was taken by his predecessor while disposing off the assessee s appeal for A.Y 2010-11 had rightly restricted the addition to 4% of the aggregate value of the impugned purchases. It was further submitted by the ld. A.R that the order pa ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ases had either found its way as a part of the accounted sales or formed part of the closing stock of the assessee for the year under consideration the addition would be restricted only to the extent the assessee would had benefited from procuring the goods at a discounted value from such unidentified suppliers operating in the open/grey market as against the value booked by it in its books of accounts. However, we find, that in the present case before us it is a matter of fact borne from the records that the assessee had failed to prove that the purchases claimed by the assessee to have been made from the aforementioned parties had either found its way as a part of the accounted sales or formed part of the closing stock of the assessee for the year under consideration. In fact, as observed by us hereinabove, the assessee had expressed its inability to produce the documentary evidence substantiating the fact that the sales corresponding to the impugned purchases were duly accounted for in its books of accounts. In the backdrop of the aforesaid facts we are unable to concur with the view taken by the CIT(A) that the addition in respect of the impugned purchases was liable to be rest ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
