TMI Blog2017 (1) TMI 1809X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... and of CIT(A) to treat the purchases from the 10 parties as bogus is concerned, the same is hereby affirmed. Estimation of income - CIT(A) sustaining the addition to the extent of 12.5% - CIT(A) who followed the judgments of Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in the case of Bholanath Poly Fab Pvt. Ltd [ 2013 (10) TMI 933 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT] and Simit P. Sheth [ 2013 (10) TMI 1028 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT] to hold that assessee had indeed made purchases though not from the named parties but from other parties in grey market. For this reason, the addition has been partly sustained to the extent of probable profit on the amount of such purchases. The approach adopted by the CIT(A) is expressly supported by the judgments of Hon'ble Gujarat ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... account of GP rate in respect of purchases 1. The learned CIT(A) failed to appreciate that all purchases of the Appellant were genuine, and hence, addition at GP rate of 12.5% is not justified. 2. The learned CIT(A) failed to appreciate that non-service of notice u/s 133(6) was irrelevant as the Appellant had furnished all documentary evidence in support of proving its purchases. 3. The appellant craves leave to add, amend, alter or delete any of the above grounds of appeal. ITA NO. 1164/MUM/2015 (Revenue s appeal) 1. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld.CIT(A) has erred in partly allowing the appeal of the assessee and by sustaining the addition only to the extent of 12.5% of addi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... th (2013) 38 Taxmann 385(Guj) without appreciating that, unlike in the case of Simit Sheth (Supra), there was no finding in the instant case of the assessee that the assessee had indeed purchased though not from the named parties but other parties from grey market.? 6. The appellant craves leave to amend or alter any ground or add a new ground which may be necessary. 4. In the cross-appeals, the substantive dispute arises from the action of Assessing Officer in holding that purchases of ₹ 88,53,059/- effected by the assessee-firm from 10 parties are bogus. The Assessing Officer treated the entire amount of purchases of ₹ 88,53,059/- as unexplained expenditure and added it to the total income. The CIT(A) concurred with ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... uing notices u/s 133(6) of the Act to the various parties and also deputed his Inspector. It is noted in the assessment order that the notices sent to the parties were returned back by the Postal authorities with remark left and the Inspector also reported that the parties did not exist at the addresses provided by the assessee. Under these circumstances, the CIT(A) has also found it fit to treat the purchases from the 10 parties as bogus. Though the learned representative for the assessee has reiterated the submissions made before the lower authorities, which has been reproduced by the CIT(A) in his order in para 2.4.1, yet we find that the same are merely generalised submissions and do not address the specific verification exercise carr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... has prevailed with the CIT(A) who followed the judgments of Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in the case of Bholanath Poly Fab Pvt. Ltd. (supra) and Simit P. Sheth (supra) to hold that assessee had indeed made purchases though not from the named parties but from other parties in grey market. For this reason, the addition has been partly sustained to the extent of probable profit on the amount of such purchases. In our considered opinion, the approach adopted by the CIT(A) is expressly supported by the judgments of Hon'ble Gujarat High Court having regard to the factual situation in the instant case. Therefore, we affirm the ultimate decision of CIT(A) to sustain the addition to the extent of 12.5% of the amount of disputed purchases. 9 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
