9911796707
TMI Blog2021 (12) TMI 1193X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nder section 143(3) r.w.s 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'),dated 23.12.2016and 21.03.2016 respectively. 2.Since, the issues involved in all the appeals are common and identical except variance of amount; therefore, these appeals have been heard together and are being disposed of by this consolidated order. For the sake of convenience, the grounds as well as the facts narrated inITA No.263/SRT/2018, for assessment year 2014-15, have been taken into consideration for deciding the above appeals en masse. 3. Ground of appeal raised by the Revenue in 'lead' case ITA No.263/SRT/2019 for A.Y. 2014-15 are as follows:- "(i) On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in re ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 207,93,27,931/-. During the year under consideration, assessee has furnished details of party-wise from whom diamonds have been purchased. On verification of the same, it wasnoticed by the assessing officer that following concerns are belongs to Shri Gautam Jain group and assessee Bhagchand Jain HUF and received accommodation entries, which are reproduced below:- Sr.No Name of the entity of Shri Gautam Jain Amount (in Rs) 1 M/s Kishna Diam 2,12,60,256/- 2 M/s Parshwanath Gems Pvt. Ltd. 2,06,40,285/- Total 4,19,00,541/- During the search proceedings statement on oath were recorded of dummy directors / partners / proprietors of concerns of Shri Gautam Jain group in which Shri Gautam Bhanwarlal Jain director of M/s Parshwan ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... angani Impex for A.Y. 2013-14 in appeal No. CAS-3/512/2C15-16 dated 24.11.2016 which was further followed by decision of ITAT in case of Mayank Diamond Pvt, Ltd reported in 2014(11) TMI 812 (Guj) in Tax Appeal No. 200 of 2003 dated 07.11.2004and confirmed the disallowance of 5% ofthe impugned purchases. The Ld. CIT(A) has discussed the various decision of ITAT, High Court and Supreme Court in his decision and restricted the disallowance of bogus purchases @5% of such purchases and granted relief to the assessee to the tune of Rs. 3,98,05,514/-. 7. Aggrieved by the order of ld CIT(A), the Revenue is in appeal before us. 8.We have heard both the parties and perused the materials available on record. The Ld DR for the Revenue states that iss ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 1.03% on turnover of Rs. 1.86 Crore. The disputed transaction in the said case was Rs. 1.68 Crore. However, in the present case the assessee has declared the GP @ 0.78%. It is settled law that under Income-tax, the tax authorities are not entitled to tax the entire transaction, but only the income component of the disputed transaction, to prevent the possibility of revenue leakage. Therefore, considering overall facts and circumstances of the present case, we are of the view that disallowances @ 6% of impugned purchases / disputed purchases would be sufficient to meet the possibility of revenue leakage. In the result the ground No. 2 of appeal raised by the assessee is partly allowed and the grounds of appeal raised by revenue are dismissed ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
