9911796707
TMI Blog2021 (12) TMI 934X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ct'], dated 23.03.2016. 2. Grounds of appeal raised by the Revenue are as follows: "1. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the CIT(A) has erred in restricting the addition made by the AO on account of disallowance of non-genuine purchases from Rs. 2,49,88,345/- to Rs. 12,49,417/-. 2. Whether, on facts and in law the ld CIT (A) was justified in partly allowing the appeal of the assessee and estimating disallowance at Rs. 12,49,417/- @5 % of Rs. 2,49,88,345/- despite of the fact the AO has made the addition of Rs. 2,49,88,345/- and 25% is due as per the Vijay Proteins case decided by Hon'ble Supreme Court of India. 3. Whether, on facts and in law the ld CIT (A) was justified in relaying the decision in the case o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ifiable as to how much carat wise diamonds are manufactured. Therefore, assessing officer made addition of Rs. 2,49,88,345/-. 4. Aggrieved by the order of Assessing Officer, the assessee carried the matter in appeal before the ld.CIT(A), who has restricted the addition to 5% of unverifiable purchases, by following the judgment of Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in the case of Mayank Diamond Pvt. Ltd. reported in 2014 (11) TMI 812 (Guj.). 5. Aggrieved, the Revenue is in appeal before us. 6. We have heard both the parties and carefully gone through the submission put forth on behalf of the assessee along with the documents furnished and the case laws relied upon, and perused the fact of the case including the findings of the ld CIT(A) and o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nvestigation wing Mumbai. No independent investigation was carried by the AO. The AO has not disputed the sale of the assessee. The AO made no comment on the evidences furnished by the assessee. We further find that ld CIT(A), while considering the submissions of the assessee accepted the lapses on the part of the AO and noted that no sale is possible in absence of purchases. The Books of the assessee was not rejected by the AO. The ld CIT(A) on further examination of the facts and various legal submissions find that Ahmedabad Tribunal in Bholanath Poly Fab Private Limited (supra) held that in the such cases the addition of bogus purchases was sustained to the extent of 12%, on the observation that the assessee may have made purchases from ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... has shown total turnover of Rs. 66,09,62,458/-. The assessee has shown Gross Profit @ .78% and net Profit @ .02% (page 11 of paper Book). The assessee while filing the return of income has declared taxable income of Rs. 1,81,840/- only. We are conscious of the facts that dispute before us is only with regard of the disputed purchases of Rs, 4.34 Crore, which was shown to have purchased from the entity managed by Bhanwarlal Jain Group. During the search action on Bhanwarlal Jain no stock of goods/ material was found to the investigation party. Bhanwarlal Jain while filing return of income has offered commission income (entry provider). Before us, the ld CIT-DR for the revenue vehemently submitted that the ratio of decision of Hon'ble Gujara ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
