TaxTMI Login
AI Drafter - (New and Powerful) ✕
Generate professional replies, appeals, opinions to Show Cause Notices, assessment orders, audit objections, and other legal communications using TaxTMI's AI Drafter.
Just a moment...
AI Drafter - (New and Powerful) ✕ Generate professional replies, appeals, opinions to Show Cause Notices, assessment orders, audit objections, and other legal communications using TaxTMI's AI Drafter.
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
of 
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: (i) whether the challenge to reassessment was sustainable; (ii) whether addition of the entire alleged bogus purchases was justified or the profit element alone was to be estimated.
Issue (i): whether the challenge to reassessment was sustainable.
Analysis: The challenge to reopening was not substantiated by the assessee beyond a brief reference in the written submissions. No material was placed to demonstrate that the reassessment initiated under section 147 was invalid.
Conclusion: The challenge to reassessment was rejected and the reopening was upheld.
Issue (ii): whether addition of the entire alleged bogus purchases was justified or the profit element alone was to be estimated.
Analysis: The purchases were treated as having been made from hawala dealers, but the sales were not disputed and the existence of corresponding inflow of goods could not be ignored. In such circumstances, the entire purchases could not be added as income. Following the approach adopted in comparable cases, estimation of the profit element embedded in such purchases was considered appropriate, and 10% of the alleged bogus purchases was taken as a fair estimate.
Conclusion: The addition was restricted to 10% of the alleged bogus purchases.
Final Conclusion: The appeals succeeded only to the limited extent of restricting the disallowance to the estimated profit element, while the reassessment challenge failed.
Ratio Decidendi: Where purchases from suspicious or hawala dealers are doubted but sales are accepted, the entire purchase amount is not to be added as income and only the profit element embedded in such purchases may be estimated.
TaxTMI 
