9911796707
TMI Blog2025 (5) TMI 1544X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... #39;) for the A.Y. 2017-18. 2. As both the appeals under consideration, emanates from the same impugned order dated 24.07.2024, hence for the sake of brevity the same were heard together and are being disposed of by this composite order. 3. First, we will decide the appeal filed by the Assessee le. ITA no.4062/M/2024, relevant facts for adjudication of the same are that the Assessing Officer (AO), on noticing from the profit and loss account of the Assessee, has found that the Assessee has debited a sum of Rs. 1,63,60,92,151/- on account of purchases of raw material and therefore vide notice dated 30.08.2019 u/s 142(1) of the Act, asked the Assessee to furnish party wise break up of all sales and purchase with name, PAN and address of the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t appreciated the documentary evidence and explanation of the appellant during assessment proceedings and has mechanically added back the bogus purchase made from M/s Arihant Export. The appellant has strongly denied that it has purchased any such raw material from Arihant Export (as held by sales tax as Bogus Party) during the year under consideration. The AO has simply relied upon the previous year assessments without properly verifying the facts of the current year. Further, appellant has submitted that Arihant Export from whom it has purchased raw material belongs to Shri Pushpendra Prakash Chandra Pataudi as against entity belonging to Shri Rajendra Jain. The appellant has submitted the affidavit from Shri Pushpendra Pataudi in this re ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on of Rs. 49,87,255/- (Rs. 55,41,394/- Rs. 5,54,139/-). 6. The Assessee, being aggrieved, challenged the decision of the Ld. Commissioner in restricting the addition to the extent of 10% whereas the Revenue Department, being aggrieved, challenged the decision of the Ld. Commissioner in deleting the addition of Rs. 49,87,255/- and reducing the addition to the extent of 10% only. 7. The Assessee by filing an affidavit of Shri Pushpendra Prakash Chandra Patodi, proprietor of M/s. Arihant Exports, Jaipur, Rajasthan demonstrated the details of the sales made to the Assessee as tabulated below: 10. That the year wise sales made to M/s. Sunjewels Pvt. Ltd. is tabulated as under: Financial years Item sold Amount INR 2015-16 Semi-precious s ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Exports and therefore in order to verify the business details of M/s. Arihant Exports, query was sought from the AO, by the Bench vide order dated 18.11.2024. The AO was also directed to file the PAN number and the details of GST number of M/s. Arihant Exports, on the basis of which addition has been made by the AO and affirmed by the Ld. Commissioner. The AO in compliance to the direction dated 08.11.2024 submitted its report on dated 10.01.2024 and claimed as under: "That the Assessee, during the course of assessment proceedings, was asked to produce the PAN number, address, VAT/TIN of the seller involved in the transaction i.e. M/s. Arihant Exports totaling to Rs. 35,86,485/- the proprietary concern of Shri Sachin Parikh and M/s. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... eculiar facts and circumstances in totality, as in the previous assessment years i.e. 2010-11, 2012-13 & 2013-14, identical disallowance on account of alleged bogus purchases has also been made by the AO himself to the tune of 5% of the alleged bogus purchases by passing the respective assessment orders and therefore, we, in order to cut short the litigation and for substantial justice, are inclined to restrict the addition to the tune of 5% instead of 10% by following the rule of consistency, on which the Ld. Counsel for the Assessee Shri Ravikanth Pathak has also agreed to. Thus the addition is restricted to 5% of the bogus purchases, instead of 10% as sustained by the Ld. Commissioner. Resultantly, the appeal filed by the Assessee is par ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... issioner that the estimation varies with the nature of business and no uniform yardstick could be adopted and once the sale is accepted then the very basis of purchase would not be questioned. Further, only profit element embedded in the purchase should be taxed. The decision of the Ld. Commissioner is based on the logical reasoning and under the facts and circumstances of the case, therefore the same needs no interference except sustaining the addition to the extent of 10% which, we, in the Assessee's appeal reduced to 5%. Hence, the appeal filed by the Revenue Department is liable to be dismissed and thus the same is dismissed. 15. In the result, the appeal filed by the Assessee is partly allowed, whereas the appeal of the Revenue De ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
