TMI Blog2022 (11) TMI 377X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Rajendra Chandekar ORDER The Appellant, Shri Poonmaram K. Prajapati (hereinafter referred to as the assessee ) by filing the present appeals, sought to set aside the impugned orders dated 19/11/2019 25/10/2019, passed by the National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi and Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals)-30, Mumbai [hereinafter referred to as the CIT(A) ] respectively, qua the assessment orders for Assessment Years 2009-10 and 2010-11, respectively on the grounds interalia that:- ITA No.1952/Mum/2022 (A.Y. 2009-10) Being aggrieved by the order passed by the Learned Assessing Officer (A..O) u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 147 of the Income Tax Act ('the Act') and as partly allowed by the CIT (A), your appellant prefer ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ITA 1951/Mum/2022 (AY 2010-11) Being aggrieved by the order passed by the Learned Assessing Officer (A..O) u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 147 of the Income Tax Act ('the Act') at 12.5% addition which was enhanced to 100% addition by the CIT (A), your appellant prefers an appeal on the following grounds, which it is prayed, may be considered without prejudice to one another. 1. (a) On facts and circumstances of the case and in law, Ld. CIT(A) erred in enhancing the addition to 100% of purchases when the books are not rejected by the A.O . It is an proven fact by various judicial authorities that sales without purchases is not possible. (b) The CIT (A) erred in enhancement to 100% addition without appreciating the under ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... king accommodation entries of non genuine purchases assessments were reopened by initiation the proceedings under sections 147 / 148 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (for short, the Act). from the following parties:- A.Y. 2009-10 1. Mona / Metalex Metal Corporation Rs. 9,46,423/- 2. Mumbai Metal Corporation 3. Bhavikh Steels Pvt Ltd Rs.13,66,983/- 4. Murphy Metals Pvt Ltd Rs.14,13,703/- 5. Mercury Metal Corporation Rs.6,32,650/- 6. Alliance Steel Industries Rs.2,31,429/- ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... iven by the assessee not tenable, Assessing Officer proceeded to make an addition @12.5% of total amount of Rs.43,53,676/-, i.e. Rs.5,44,209/- on account of unproved / non genuine purchases and thereby framed the assessment under section 143(3) r.w.s. 147 of the Act. 4. Assessee carried the matter before Ld.CIT(A) by way of filing appeals for A.Ys 2009-10 and 2010-11. Ld.CIT(A) in A.Y. 2009-10 has restricted the addition made by the Assessing Officer to 25% of the bogus purchases made by the assessee by partly allowing the appeal. For A.Y. 2010-11, Ld.CIT(A) enhanced the addition made by Assessing Officer from 12.5% of bogus purchases of Rs.43,53,676/- to 100% by dismissing the appeal filed by the assessee. Feeling aggrieved, the assesse ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... td in ITA No.1850 of 2017 order dated 28 October, 2021 and the decision rendered by the co-ordinate Bench of the Tribunal cited as M/s Pavapuri Metals Tubes vs. Income Tax Officer in ITA No.1148/M/2019 order dated 29.09.2020 and in the case of Ravindran Nair vs. Income Tax Officer in ITA 2662/M/2018 order dated 31.12.2018 and case decided by Hon ble Bombay High Court of M/s Mohammed Haji Alam Co (ITA No.1004/2016 dated 11/02/2019) 7. On the other hand, the Ld.DR for the Revenue relied on the order passed by Assessing Officer as well as Ld.CIT(A) and contended that in such cases, total amount of bogus purchases needs to be added to the income of the assessee as assessee has failed to prove the genuineness of the purchases. 7A. In t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... us purchase when material consumption factor do not show abnormal deviation. 5. Whether the purchases were bogus or whether the parties from whom such purchases were allegedly made were bogus was essentially a question of fact. When the Tribunal has concluded that the assessee did make the purchase, as a natural corollary not the entire amount covered by such purchase but the profit element embedded therein would be subject to tax. 8. The Ld.AR for the assessee further contended that the assessee has never earned the GP @25% as estimated by Ld.CIT(A) in A.Y. 2009-10 and addition of 100% made by Ld.CIT(A) in A.Y. 2010-11 is not sustainable in view of the law laid down by Hon ble Bombay High Court in M/s Mohammed Haji Adam Co (I ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
