Tribunal decisions on assessment appeals, bogus purchases, and penalties for default.

The Tribunal dismissed the assessee's appeal regarding the reopening of assessment for the year 2009-10. For the assessment year 2010-11, the Tribunal upheld the addition of 10% of bogus purchases to prevent revenue leakages due to hawala transactions. The penalty under section 271A for default under section 44A was deleted as the books of accounts were maintained and certified. The Tribunal partially allowed appeals related to the addition of bogus purchases for multiple years, deleting 90% of the amount.

---

---

Issues:
1. Reopening of assessment for the assessment year 2009-10.
2. Addition of 10% of bogus purchases for the assessment year 2010-11.
3. Levy of penalty under section 271A for default under section 44A.
4. Sustaining the addition of 10% of bogus purchases for multiple assessment years.

Reopening of Assessment (2009-10):
The assessee filed four appeals, including one against the order dated 1.9.2016 passed by the ld.CIT(A) for the assessment year 2009-10. The appeals, cross-appeals, and cross-objection were clubbed together and disposed of by a common order. The issue of reopening the assessment was raised initially but later not pressed by the assessee, leading to its dismissal.

Addition of 10% of Bogus Purchases (2010-11):
The primary issue in this case was the confirmation of Rs. 6,01,430 (10% of Rs. 60,14,350) as bogus purchases by the ld. CIT(A) for the assessment year 2010-11. The AO had added the entire amount of bogus purchases to the total income of the assessee, which was partly sustained by the CIT(A) at 10% to cover revenue leakages due to hawala transactions. The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, emphasizing the need to make additions on a percentage basis in such cases to prevent revenue leakages.

Levy of Penalty under Section 271A (Default under Section 44A):
The issue revolved around the confirmation of the penalty of Rs. 25,000 under section 271A for default under section 44A. The AO imposed the penalty for the failure to maintain books of accounts, which was upheld by the CIT(A). However, the Tribunal disagreed, noting that the books of accounts were audited, maintained, and certified by the auditors, and the penalty was wrongly imposed. Consequently, the penalty was directed to be deleted.

Sustaining the Addition of 10% of Bogus Purchases (Multiple Years):
The Tribunal addressed appeals related to sustaining the addition of 10% of bogus purchases for multiple assessment years. The decision taken in one appeal was applied mutatis mutandis to other identical appeals, resulting in the deletion of 90% of the bogus purchases. The appeals by the assessee were partly allowed based on the consistent approach taken in similar cases.

In conclusion, the Tribunal dismissed the appeal of the assessee for one year, allowed the appeal against the penalty, and partly allowed appeals related to the addition of bogus purchases for multiple years. The orders were pronounced on 29.9.2017 after considering all the relevant facts and legal arguments presented during the proceedings.

---