TMI Blog2021 (9) TMI 578X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Shri J. Sudhakar Reddy, Accountant Member And Shri A.T. Varkey, Judicial Member Shri Miraj D. Shah, A.R., appeared on behalf of the assessee Smt. Ranu Biswas, Additional CIT, appeared on behalf of the Revenue ORDER Per Shri J. Sudhakar Reddy, Accountant Member:- This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order of ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... .R. has not raised any objection in this regard. We, therefore, condone the said delay and proceed to dispose of the appeal of the assessee on merit. 3. The assessee is a partnership firm which derives income from business and profession. It filed its return of income on 25.04.2018 disclosing total income of ₹ 72,130/-. The case was reopened under section 148 of the Act, thereafter the as ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ire unverified purchases are not rendered vulnerable for addition, only the element of profit embedded from such purchase should be considered for addition. The appellant had disclosed a GP of 22.98% for the AY 2011-12. Therefore, it would be reasonable to limit undisclosed profit embedded in the bogus purchase to 22.98% at ₹ 1,96,477/-. The addition of ₹ 8,54,993/- is restricted to &# ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... same Shri Sanjiv Kumar Singh and without giving any opportunity to cross examine by the Pr. DIT (Inv.), Kolkata, was deleted and prayed that the addition be deleted. 4. Alternatively it was submitted by the ld. Counsel for the assessee that the percentage adopted by the ld. Pr. CIT was highly excessive and as the assessee s turnover is less than ₹ 40 lakhs and therefore the net profit sh ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
