TMI Blog2017 (12) TMI 1797X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... pinion, on the facts and in circumstances of the case, 12.5% disallowance out of the bogus purchases meets the end of justice. This proposition draws support from the Hon ble Gujarat High Court decision in the case of CIT vs Simit P. Sheth [ 2013 (10) TMI 1028 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT ] . Accordingly, direct that disallowance be limited to 12.5% of bogus purchase. Appeal filed by the assessee stands partly allowed. - I.T.A. No. 4772/Mum/2017 - - - Dated:- 13-12-2017 - SHRI SHAMIM YAHYA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER For the Appellant : Shri Naveen Kumar For the Respondent : Ms. N. Hemalatha ORDER Per Shamim Yahya, A. M.: This appeal by the assessee is directed against order of ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) dated 15 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 2 Sunrise Enterprises 27370565400V 5,74,914/- 3 Saraogi Syndicate 27140326567V 16,10,673/- 4 Amar Enterprises 27030265566V 28,06,414/- Total 60,61,815/- Holding the above to be bogus purchase, the Assessing Officer made addition of ₹ 28,47,360/- being the peak credit involved. 4. Against the above order, the assessee appealed before the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals). The ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) confirmed the action of the assessing of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tices have returned unserved. Assessee has not been able to produce any of the parties. Neither the assessee has been able to produce any confirmation from these parties. In such circumstances, there is no doubt that these parties are non-existent. We find it further strange that assessee wants the Revenue to produce assessee s own vendors, whom the assessee could not produce. The purchase bills from these non-existent/bogus parties cannot be taken as cogent evidence of purchases. In light of the overwhelming evidence, the Revenue authorities cannot put upon blinkers and accept these purchases as genuine. This proposition is duly supported by Hon ble Apex Court decision in the case of Sumati Dayal vs. CIT [1995] 214 ITR 801 (SC) and CIT vs. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
