TMI Blog2022 (7) TMI 1091X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t that the entire amount ought to have been added to the income of the assessee is untenable, especially when the learned CIT(A) in its order as upheld by the Tribunal in the order impugned held that the purchases per se were not in dispute but the parties from whom the purchases are shown to have been made are disputed. The order passed by the Tribunal is legally valid warranting no interference. - INCOME TAX APPEAL NO. 398 OF 2018 - - - Dated:- 18-7-2022 - DHIRAJ SINGH THAKUR AND ABHAY AHUJA, JJ. Mr. Ashok Kotangle a/w Mr. P. A. Narayanan, Mr. Ajay V. Anand Ms. Raveen Kaur, Advocates for the Appellant. (PER DHIRAJ SINGH THAKUR, J.): The present appeal has been preferred under Section 260(A) of the Income Tax ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... o be bogus purchase entries as per the information received by the A.O. The assessee was asked to produce the twelve parties from whom the assessee was reported to have taken the so called bogus bills, which the assessee failed to do. Upon failure of the assessee to produce the twelve parties from whom the purchases were made, the A.O. asked the assessee to show cause, as to why the amount of purchases being not genuine, be not added to the total income of the assessee. 4. In response to the said show cause notice, the assessee submitted its reply alongwith a copy of the stock register as also details with regard to the material purchased for consumption at its respective work sites. It was stated that on the basis of purchases made by t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... held that merely, because the suppliers did not appear before the A.O. or only five confirmation letters were furnished, it cannot not be concluded that purchases were not made by the assessee. 7. Accepting the statement of the assessee that the addition be restricted to only profit element on the purchases effected by it, the CIT(A) by following CIT Vs. Bholanath Poly Fab Pvt. Ltd. (2013) 355 ITR 290 (Guj)., and considering the facts and circumstances of the case, restricted the addition by estimating profit of 12.5% on the total purchases in question which works out to Rs.59,31,849/-. It thus, granted relief to the assessee to the tune of Rs.4,15,22,944/- (Rs.4,74,54,793/- Rs.59,31,849/-). 8. The order passed by learned CIT(A) ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... passed by the learned CIT(A), cannot be said to be in any manner perverse or legally untenable, inasmuch as, if the entire amount of Rs.4,74,54,793/- were to be held as non-genuine purchases, then it would not be possible to justify as to how the works allotted to the assessee for execution by the semi Government Agencies could be completed. Therefore the argument that the entire amount of Rs.4,74,54,793/- ought to have been added to the income of the assessee is untenable, especially when the learned CIT(A) in its order as upheld by the Tribunal in the order impugned held that the purchases per se were not in dispute but the parties from whom the purchases are shown to have been made are disputed. 13. In our opinion, the order passed by ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
