TMI Blog2022 (11) TMI 1165X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ssessee by : None Respondent by : Shri Ashok B. Koli , CIT - DR ORDER PER DR. A. L. SAINI , AM : Captioned appeal filed by the Revenue, pertaining to Assessment Year (AY) 2013-14, is directed against the order passed by the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-1, [in short the ld. CIT(A) ], in Appeal No. CIT(A),-1/10776/2016-17 dated 29.11.2018, which in turn arises out of an assessment order passed by Assessing Officer under section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the Act ), dated 23.03.2016. 2. Grounds of appeal raised by the Revenue are as follows: (i) On the facts and circumstances of the case and in Law, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in restricted the addition made by the AO of Rs.14,96,35,632/- on account of bogus purchases to 5% and deleting the addition on account of corresponding receipt to undisclosed TDS of Rs.1,34,795/-. (ii) On the facts and circumstances of the case and in Law, the Ld. CIT(A) has failed to appreciate the fact that the entire purchase from alleged concerns were bogus and was only to suppress the profit of the beneficiaries which is substantiated by the statement on oath given by the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... op. Dhamendra Babel) amounting to Rs.10,42,13,018/- and M/s. Rajat Diamond Pvt. Ltd. amounting to Rs.4,54,22,614/- totaling to the tune of Rs.14,96,35,632/- which were Shri Gautam Jain group concerns without actually getting the material. Thus, the bill issued by the said group concern is nothing but accommodation entry. Hence, the accommodation entry received to the tune of Rs.14,96,35,632/- was treated as bogus purchases and added to the total income of the assessee. 4. Aggrieved by the order of Assessing Officer, the assessee carried the matter in appeal before the ld. CIT(A) who has restricted the addition at the rate of 5% of bogus purchases, observing as follows: 7.4 In the instant appeal, there is no such adverse finding as in the case of N K Proteins (supra). The facts in. instant appeal are identical to Gangani Impex (supra) and the cases decided by the jurisdictional ITAT (supra). In view of this, respectfully following jurisdictional ITAT, the disallowance is restricted to 5%. The AR has furnished orders of Hon'ble ble ITAT Mumbai and Kolkata wherein, on identical circumstances factual matrix involving the same operators the entire disallowance made by Ld ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ntry only to inflate the expenses and to reduce the ultimate profit. No stocks of diamonds were found at the time of search on Bhanwarlal Jain Group. The assessee has shown a very meagre gross profit (GP) @ 0.78% and not net profit (NP) at 0.02%. The ld. CIT(A) restricted the addition to the extent of 12.5% which is on the lower side. The ld. CIT-DR for the revenue prayed that disallowance made by the AO may be upheld or in alternative submitted that it may restricted at least @ 25%, keeping in view that the NP declared by the assessee is extremely on lower side. 13. On the validity of reopening, the ld.CIT-DR for the revenue submits that the AO received credible information about the accommodation entry provided by Bhanwarlal Jain Group. The assessee is one of the beneficiaries, who had availed accommodation entries from such hawala trader. At the time of recording reasons, the mere suspicious about the accommodation entry is sufficient as held by Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court in various cases. To support his submissions, the ld.CIT-DR relied upon the decision; Pushpak Bullion (P) Ltd Vs DCIT [2017] 85 taxmann.com 84(Gujarat High Court), Peass Industrial ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n by assessee are genuine. In without prejudice and alternative submissions, the Ld. AR for the assessee submits that in alternative submission, the disallowance may be sustained on reasonable basis. To support his various submission, the ld.AR for the assessee is relied upon case laws: 1 M/s Andaman Timber industries VsCommissioner of Central Excise, CIVIL APPEAL NO. 4228 OF 2006 (Supreme Court) 2 CIT vs. Indrajit Singh Suri [2013] 33 taxmann.com 281 (Gujarat) 3 Albers Diamonds Pvt. Ltd. Vs ITO 1(1)(1), Surat I.T.A. No.776 1180/AHD/2017 4 The PCIT-5 vs. M/s. Shodiman Investments Pvt. Ltd. TTANO. 1297 OF 2015 (Bombay High Court) 5 Shilpi Jewellers Pvt. Ltd. vs. Union of India Ors. WRIT PETITION NO. 3540 OF 2018 (Bombay High Court) 6 CIT in Vs. Mohmed Juned Dadani 355 ITR 172 (Gujarat) 7 Micro Inks Pvt. Ltd. Vs. ACIT [2017] 79 taxmann.com 153 (Gujarat) 8 Shakti Karnawat Vs. ITO - 2(3)(8), Surat ITA 1504/Ahd/2017 and 1381 /Ahd/2017 9 Asian Paints Ltd. Vs. DCIT, [2008] 296 ITR 90 (Bombay) 10 PCIT, Surat 1 Vs. Tejua Rohit kumar Kapadia [2018] 94 taxmann.com 325 (SC) 11 The PCIT-17 vs. M/s Mohommad Haji Adam Co. ITA N ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... supra) while considering the validity of similar notice of reopening, which was also issued on the basis of information of investigation wing that they have searched a person who is engaged in providing accommodation entries, held that where after scrutiny assessment the assessing officer received information from the investigation wing that well known entry operators of the country provided bogus entries to various beneficiaries, and assessee was one of such beneficiary, assessing officer was justified in re-opening assessment. Further similar view was taken by Hon ble Jurisdictional High Court in Pushpak Bullion (P) Ltd Vs DCIT (supra). Therefore, respectfully following the order of Hon ble High Court, we find that the assessing officer validly assumed the jurisdiction for making re-opening under section 147 on the basis of information of investigation wing Mumbai. So far as other submissions of the ld AR for the assessee that there is no live link of the reasons recorded, we find that the Hon ble Jurisdictional High Court in Peass Industrial Engineers (P) Ltd clearly held that when assessing officer received information from the investigation wing that two well known entry opera ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he had sustain 5% of Gross Profit Rate, considering the fact that where Gross Profit shown by those assessee s are more than 5%. However, in the present case, the assessee has merely shown Gross Profit Rate only at 0.78% of turnover, accordingly, the ld. CIT(A) was of the view that disallowance of 12.5% of impugned purchases/bogus purchases would be reasonable to meet the end of justice. 21. We have seen that during the financial year under consideration the assessee has shown total turnover of Rs. 66,09,62,458/-. The assessee has shown Gross Profit @ .78% and net Profit @ 0.02% (page 11 of paper Book). The assessee while filing the return of income has declared taxable income of Rs.1,81,840/- only. We are conscious of the facts that dispute before us is only with regard of the disputed purchases of Rs, 4.34 Crore, which was shown to have purchased from the entity managed by Bhanwarlal Jain Group. During the search action on Bhanwarlal Jain no stock of goods/ material was found to the investigation party. Bhanwarlal Jain while filing return of income has offered commission income (entry provider). Before us, the ld CIT-DR for the revenue vehemently submitted that the ratio of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
