TMI Blog2019 (3) TMI 1982X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed the details called for to prove his contention that the purchases are genuine except for the confirmation of the parties from whom the purchases were made. Before me, no fault has been pointed out in those details submitted by the assessee - Decided in favour of assessee. - ITA Nos. 440 to 442/PUN/2017 - - - Dated:- 22-3-2019 - Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Accountant Member For the Assessee : Shri Pramod Shingte. For the Revenue : Shri M.K. Verma. ORDER PER ANIL CHATURVEDI, AM : 1. These appeals filed by the assessee are emanating out of common order of Commissioner of Income Tax (A) 4, Pune dated 15.11.2016 for the assessment years 2009-10 to 2011-12. 2. Before me, at the outset, both the parties submitted that though the appeals filed by the assessee are for different assessment years but the facts and issues involved in all the three appeals are identical except the assessment years and the amounts involved and therefore the submissions made by them while arguing one appeal would be equally applicable to the other appeals also and thus, all the three appeals can be heard together. In view of the aforesaid submissions of both the parties, I, for t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... imself relied upon a number decisions of Tribunals and High courts whereby G.P addition of 5% to 25% embedded in such purchases was upheld considering the past G.P trend of the Assessee's in those cases, but failed to appreciate the crux of all the decisions that G.P addition in those cases was not over and above the G.P already declared by the assessee. 3. Without prejudice to above grounds, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law the learned CIT(A) erred in confirming the addition of Rs.3,39,350/- as G.P involved in URD purchases, which were originally alleged as bog-us purchases of Rs.33,93,506/- in the reasons recorded while reopening the assessment based on information received from Sales Tax department but: were finally determined as purchases from unregistered Dealer (URD) by the assessing officer, without making a distinction between the terms bogus purchases and URD Purchases and rejecting appellants claim that when no addition is made on the ground for which assessment was reopened u/s 147, no other addition can be made by the Assessing officer which did not form part of the reasons recorded by him in view of the decision of Hon'ble Bomb ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Ld. AR of the appellant. The AO has reopened the case u/s 147 for all the three Assessment years on the basis of information received from sales tax department regarding alleged bogus hawala purchases from the few parties as stated in reasons recorded by the assessing officer and reproduced by him in the body of the Assessment order. The AO has made addition on the basis of gross profit involved in purchases at 10%, 6.39% and 8.27% amounting to Rs.3,39,350/- for A.Y. 2009-10, Rs.5,3,248/- for A.Y. 2010-11 and Rs.1,89,360/- for A.Y. 2011-12 respectively. The Sales Tax Department had conducted surveys on the various entry providers and it came to light that the purchases amounting to Rs.33,93,506/-, Rs.78,75,560/- and RS.22,89,725/- for the A.Y. 2009-10, A.Y. 2010-11 and A.Y. 2011-12 respectively were purchases which were treated by the Sales Tax Department as in the nature of accommodation bills / hawala transactions. 5.3.1. The Appellant has challenged the act of the AO in reopening the case u/s 147 of the Act on the basis of information received from the Sales Tax Department. In the present case, there being a confirmation from the Hawala Operator against the hawala purchase ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... making the distinction between the terms bogus purchases and URD purchases . He therefore relying on the decision of Hon ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Jet Airways India Ltd reported in (2011) 331 ITR 236 submitted that if after issuing a notice u/s 148 of the Act, the AO accepted the contention of the assessee and holds that the income which he has initially formed a reason to believe had escaped assessment has not escaped assessment, then it is not open to independently assess other income. In the present cases, relying on the aforesaid decision of Hon ble Bombay High Court, he submitted that for the three assessment years since there is no addition for alleged bogus or non genuine purchases, the addition made by the AO in all the three assessment years on account of gross profit of URD purchases are beyond the jurisdiction of the AO. On the merits of the addition, he submitted that assessee has maintained complete record of the items purchased and its sale, the payment for purchases are through banking channels, the parties from whom the purchases have been made have valid PAN and GST registration number and assessee has also paid VAT on the purchases made. He t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
