9911796707
TMI Blog2025 (5) TMI 500X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ified in restricting the addition amounting to Rs. 1,27,004/-, being 12.50% of Rs. 10,16,028/- to 13.88% of Rs. 10,16,028/- on account of alleged bogus purchase made from suspicious dealers Le. M/s. Cedilla Technologies without appreciating the facts that the assessee has not been able to establish the genuineness of the purchase made from M/s. Cedilla Technologies Ltd 2."The appellant prays that the order of the CIT(A) on the grounds be set aside and That of the Assessing Officer be restored." 3."The appellant craves leaves to add, amend or alter all or any of the grounds of appeal." 2. Briefly the facts of the case are that the assessee company filed its return of income on 27-09-2013 declaring total income at Rs. 22,54,085/-. Dur ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ses treated as bogus amounting to Rs. 10,16,028/- (i.e. Rs. 1,27,004/- being 12.50% of Rs. 10,16,028/-). 5. It was submitted by the Ld.DR that the Revenue is aggrieved by the said action of the Ld. CIT(A), which is not acceptable on merit as the assessee could not substantiate its claim of purchases made and reported transactions with suspicious dealer i.e. M/s. Cedilla Technologies which was as per list of suspicious dealers prepared by the MVAT department of Maharashtra Government. The Ld. DR submitted that in such purchases, where there are corresponding sales, rate of purchase of items is not verifiable, therefore, profit earned on such suspicious purchases has been rightly adopted by AO at 13.88% of Rs. 10,16,028/- being Rs. 1,41,025/ ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... eceived by the appellant against tax invoices issued by M/s Cedilla Technologies and have been paid for the same via account payee cheque. 6.2 On the perusal of the assessment order, it is noted that AO made addition by applying G.P. rate @ 13.88% on the bogus purchase form the suspicious dealers as per list of suspicious dealers prepared by the MVAT department of Maharashtra Government and the appellant reported transactions with these suspicious dealers i.e. M/s Cedilla Technologies. During the appellate proceedings for the A.Y. 2013-14, the appellant has submitted that decision of Hon'ble ITAT, "J" Bench, Mumbai in its own case for the A.Y. 2011-12 wherein the same issue has been decided by the Hon'ble ITAT. The AO treated the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nal, which has been followed by the Ld.CIT(A) should not be applied in the facts of the present case. In other words, how the facts of the instant case are distinguishable vis-à-vis the facts which were considered by the Co-ordinate Bench of the Tribunal in assessee‟s own case for the A.Y 2011-12. Therefore, in absence of any material on record, distinguishing the facts of the case vis-à-vis for the A.Y. 2011-12, we do not see any infirmity in the order so passed by the Ld.CIT(A), who has followed the decision of the Co-ordinate Bench of the Tribunal in assessee‟s own case.
10. In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed.
Order pronounced in the open court on 25-04-2025 X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
