9911796707
TMI Blog2022 (8) TMI 942X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 022, the learned Assessing Officer has raised following three grounds of appeal:- "1 Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in restricting the disallowance to 6.5% of accommodation entries of purchase bills, which according to information received from Sales Tax Department were issued by dealers who are indulging in issuing bogus bills and not disputed by CIT(A), as against addition of 100% on total bogus purchase by A.O. ignoring that the assessee was unable to submit purchase invoice issued by the said parties, stock register to prove that the movement of goods, transport receipts, delivery challans and goods receipt note in proof of having taken delivery of goods etc. thereby fai ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s leave to amend or alter or add a new ground which may be necessary." 03. The identical grounds were also raised for A.Y. 2010-11 and 2011-12. 04. We first take up the appeal of the learned Assessing Officer for A.Y. 2009-10. 05. Brief facts of the case shows that assessee is an individual engaged in the business of trading in imitation jewellery. He filed his return of income on 18th September, 2009 at Rs.. 9,98,340/-. Subsequently, information was received by Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals)-21, Mumbai (the learned CIT (A)) from sales tax department that the assessee has obtained accommodation entries. Accordingly, the reasons were recorded and notice under Section 148 of the Act was issued on 18th March, 2013. According to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed therein is the income. He computed the profit of the assessee at the rate of 6.5% of the transaction of Rs.. 27,25,493/- amounting to Rs.. 1,77,157/- and sustained the addition to that extent. He also deleted the disallowance under Section 40A(3) of the Act . In this year, he held that though purchases have been made during this year, but payments have been made subsequently, and therefore, it should be chargeable to tax as income of the subsequent years. 09. The learned Assessing Officer aggrieved with the order of the learned CIT (A) with respect to restricting the addition on account of bogus purchases at 6.5% of accommodation entries. All the three grounds are related to that. 010. The learned Departmental Representative vehemently ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... therein. There cannot be any standard or fixed benchmark of such estimate disturbing sales, we disagree with that because some profit has already been offered by assessee by showing sales. Further, 6.5% of profit in Imitation Jewellery business also cannot be said either too low or unreasonable. In view of this, the order of the learned CIT (A) is upheld. Accordingly, Ground nos. 1 to 3, are dismissed. 014. In the result, appeal of the learned Assessing Officer is dismissed. 015. For A.Y. 2010-11, on identical facts the learned Assessing Officer made an addition of bogus purchase of Rs.. 92,67,852/-. He also made an addition of commission expenditure for obtaining such accommodation entries. The learned CIT (A) restricted the addition to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
