TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Tribunal allows appeals, directs Assessing Officers to recompute additions based on High Court's precedent.</h1> <h3>Rajesh Prakash Singhavi, Shailesh Bansilal Singhavi, Lalita Sharad Singhavi Versus ITO, Ward-3 (2), Aurangabad</h3> Rajesh Prakash Singhavi, Shailesh Bansilal Singhavi, Lalita Sharad Singhavi Versus ITO, Ward-3 (2), Aurangabad - TMI Issues:1. Addition based on bogus purchase bills received as accommodation entries from hawala dealers.2. Application of gross profit rate on unproved Hawala purchases.3. Enhancement of addition by the ld. CIT(A) to 10% gross profit rate.4. Precedent set by the Hon'ble Bombay High Court regarding ad hoc addition for bogus purchases.Analysis:Issue 1: Addition based on bogus purchase billsThe appeals involved three connected assessees with assessment years 2009-10 to 2011-12. The Assessing Officer (AO) initiated re-assessment proceedings based on information from the Sales Tax Department regarding Hawala transactions. The AO made additions to the income of the assessees by applying gross profit rates on unproved Hawala purchases, considering them as accommodation entries from hawala dealers. The assessees challenged these additions before the ld. CIT(A) and subsequently before the Tribunal.Issue 2: Application of gross profit rateThe AO applied different gross profit rates on unproved Hawala purchases made by each assessee. For example, for one assessee, the AO applied a gross profit rate of 4.63% on the unproved Hawala purchases, resulting in an addition to the income. Similarly, different rates were applied for other assessees for different assessment years.Issue 3: Enhancement of addition by ld. CIT(A)The ld. CIT(A) enhanced the additions made by the AO by applying a higher gross profit rate. For instance, in one case, the ld. CIT(A) increased the gross profit rate from 4.63% to 10%, resulting in a higher addition to the income of the assessee. This enhancement was consistent across all three assessees and multiple assessment years.Issue 4: Precedent set by Hon'ble Bombay High CourtThe Tribunal referred to a judgment by the Hon'ble Bombay High Court regarding ad hoc addition for bogus purchases. The High Court held that additions should be made based on the difference between the gross profit rate on genuine purchases and the gross profit rate on hawala purchases. Following this precedent, the Tribunal set aside the impugned orders and remitted the matter back to the respective AOs for re-computation of additions, if any, based on the ratio laid down by the High Court.In conclusion, the Tribunal allowed all the appeals for statistical purposes, directing the AOs to recompute the additions after following the precedent set by the Hon'ble Bombay High Court.
TaxTMI 