TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2015 (7) TMI 203
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... erred in law in confirming finding recorded by the Assessing Officer that purchase of Rs. 10040088/- made by the appellant are not verifiable. 2. The Ld CIT(A) is further wrong and has erred in law in upholding rejection of books of accounts of the appellant by the Assessing Officer U/s 145(3) of the IT Act, 1961 and in further confirming trading addition to the extent of Rs. 2510022/- made by the Assessing Officer by upholding disallowance of 25% of above alleged unverifiable purchase. 3. That the Ld. CIT(A) is wrong and has erred in law in confirming addition of Rs. 25100/- to the income of the appellant on account of alleged commission paid on purchases of Rs. 10040088/- referred to in ground No. (1) above. 4. That the Ld. CIT(....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....uantitative and qualitative details of stock and basis of valuation of closing stock. In these circumstances the value of stock and genuineness of the trading results are not subject to verification. On examination of purchases details, it was found that the assessee had shown purchases from bogus entry providers as under: Bill No. Concern name Date Amount (Rs.) 42 M/s Adinath Gems 04/6/2007 4,00,577/- 171 M/s Adinath Gems 3/11/2007 1,07,800/- 208 M/s Adinath Gems 4/12/2007 2,42,200/- 305 M/s Amar Gems 3/4/2007 6,13,362/- 422 M/s Amar Gems 27/8/2007 4,31,138/- 530 M/s Amar Gems 2/1/2008 2,97,594/- 555 M/s Amar Gems 4/2/2008 2,68,412/-....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ficer. He relied on the various case laws i.e.: (a) M/s Kanchwala Gems Vs. JCIT ITD No. 134. (b) CIT Vs. Precision Finance P Ltd. 208 ITR 465 (Cal). (c) M/s Indian Woolen Carpet Factory Vs. ITAT & Ors. (2002) 178 CTR 420 (Raj) (d) VISP (P) Ltd. Vs. CIT 186 CTR 718 (MP) (e) Chuhar Mal Vs. CIT 172 ITR 250 (SC) (f) CIT Vs. Golcha Prop Pvt. Ltd. 227 ITR 391 (Raj) The ld Assessing Officer further observed that from the above case laws and discussion, it is clear that the assessee has failed to prove the genuineness of the purchases made. The primary onus is on the assessee to establish the genuineness of the purchases claimed by it. Since the primary facts are in the knowledge of the assessee it is his duty to provide the co....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....mputation of total income, it is noticed that assessee had added an amount of Rs. 70,516/- on account of vehicle expenses considered personal. On perusal of depreciation chart, it noticed that the assessee maintaining 10 car and most of them are luxurious. The use of these cars for personal use has already admitted by the assessee by adding the same amount in the total income in computation. But the assessee had not disallowed the proportionate amount of deprecation of Rs. 4,32,552/- and insurance for these car at Rs. 29,184/-. He disallow 1/5 of depreciation on car as well as insurance on car which comes to Rs. 93,347/-, the same is added in the total income of the assessee. 3. Being aggrieved by the order of the learned Assessing Offic....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ds. Vs. CIT 316 ITR 274 and Vijay Protein Vs. ACIT 58 ITD 428 is applicable. In the case of M/s Sanjay Oil Cake the Hon'ble High Court has upheld the disallowance of 25% out of the unverifiable/bogus purchases made by the Hon'ble ITAT. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and the legal position under consideration, particularly considering the ratio decindi of the above cited cases, the disallowance of 25% out of the bogus as well as unverifiable purchases totaling to Rs. 1,00,40,088/- is upheld, which comes to Rs. 25,10,022/- and balance addition of Rs. 5,02,004/- is deleted." The ld CIT(A) has further held regarding commission payment as under:- "I have considered the submission of ld. AR and have perused the ma....