TMI Blog2021 (8) TMI 1141X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... en at 15.42% as against 12.14% declared by the assessee. CIT(A) has rightly deleted the addition as we have noted above as there cannot be separate addition other than estimation of profits where the books of accounts have been rejected. CIT(A) has estimated G.P @ 13% failing to take into the consideration the fact that G.P has already been estimated earlier @ 15.42% and which has been accepted by both the parties and has attained finality and necessary effect given to by the AO while passing the impugned assessment order. In the contention so advanced by the AR and the addition so sustained by the ld CIT(A) amounting is hereby directed to be deleted. - Decided in favour of assessee. - ITA. No. 1058/JP/2019 (Assessment Years : 2003-04) ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... purchases worth ₹ 61,59,622/-. Non-exercise of the powers conferred on ld. AO u/s 131 has discharged the assessee from the initial onus cost on her, and therefore, the addition on the account of bogus purchases amounting ₹ 15,39,905/- is not sustainable. 2. During the course of hearing, the ld. AR submitted that this is the second round of appellate proceedings and in the first round, the matter has reached before the Hon ble Rajasthan High Court on appeal by the Revenue and the Hon ble Rajasthan High Court has remanded the matter to the file of the Assessing Officer for deciding the same afresh. It was submitted that the Assessing Officer while passing the impugned assessment order has made an addition of ₹ 15,39,90 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 42(1), the assessee has furnished the necessary documents in terms of purchase bills, sales tax register number, PAN Number, confirmations, complete address and bank statement of the sellers as well as the assessee. Thereafter, the Assessing Officer has not raised any further queries from the assessee. Regarding the findings of the AO that the assessee failed to produce the parties in order to examine them to ascertain the genuineness of the transactions, it was submitted that the AO had never asked the assessee to produce any of the creditors and the assessee therefore cannot be expected in such circumstances to present the persons before the Assessing Officer where the AO has neither fixed the date or time for their personal appearance. I ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... order 03.11.2016 DBIT appeal No. 654/2008 remit back the case to the AO for deciding afresh on the factual matrix. In set aside assessment, Assessing Officer made addition of ₹ 15,39,905/- being 25% on purchase of ₹ 61,59,622/- made from M/s Ambica Impex and M/s Abhinav Gems as bogus and unverifiable. Since the purchases from two parties are not verifiable. Even in set aside proceedings and also in appellate proceedings, assessee has failed to verify the same. Therefore, rejection of books of accounts u/s 145(3) by Ld. Assessing Officer is correct and hereby upheld. 2.3.1 After rejection of Books of Accounts, the income has to be estimated by applying the GP rate which has to be applied based on the past histo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ve heard the rival contentions and perused the material available on record. The ld CIT(A) has returned a finding that since the purchases from two parties remain unverified, the AO has rightly rejected the books of accounts by invoking provisions of section 145(3) of the Act. At the same time, the ld CIT(A) has not agreed with the AO as far as making addition of ₹ 15,39,905/- being 25% of unverified purchases for the reason that once the books of accounts are rejected, the income has to be estimated by applying the GP rate which has to be estimated basis the past history of the appellant and has thus estimated G.P rate of 13%. It is also the consistent position taken by this Bench wherein we have held that once the books of accounts ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the G.P addition made in the first round of litigation wherein G.P rate has been taken at 15.42% as against 12.14% declared by the assessee. In the second round, the ld CIT(A) has rightly deleted the addition of ₹ 15,39,905/- as we have noted above as there cannot be separate addition other than estimation of profits where the books of accounts have been rejected. At the same time, the ld CIT(A) has estimated G.P @ 13% failing to take into the consideration the fact that G.P has already been estimated earlier @ 15.42% and which has been accepted by both the parties and has attained finality and necessary effect given to by the AO while passing the impugned assessment order. We therefore find force in the contention so advanced by the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
