TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2011 (9) TMI 973
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....in confirming the addition to 25% of bogus purchases purported to have been made from nonexistent parties? Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was right in law in modifying order of the CIT(A) and issuing direction to the A.O to consider disallowance of 25% on such bogus purchases in spite of holding that purchases in question shown in the books of accounts are bogus?" Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was right in law in modifying order of the CIT(A) and issuing direction to the A.O to consider disallowance of 25% on such bogus purchases in spite of holding that purchases in question shown in the books of accounts are bogus?" ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rchases of Rs. 2,96,00,000/with gross profit @ 5.54%. It added the sum of Rs. 17,46,130/- on account of bogus purchases made from M/s Girnar Sales Corporation, Shiv Metal Corporation and Hindustan Metal Corporation. 7. The Assessing Officer made enquiries with regard to the these parties and what have been noted was when discreet inquiries were carried out but Girnar Sales Corporation accepted that it had no business premise and there was no actual sale made as shown to have been done to various parties. He admitted of having issued the bill on payment of commission @ 1% of the total amount. The cheques received were encashed and balance amount after deducting the commission was returned to the original payer. The proprietor Corporation ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he lower authorities and restrict the disallowance to 25% of the bogus purchases. Thus this ground of appeal of the assessee is partly allowed." As aptly submitted by learned counsel Mr Parikh the reliance placed by the Tribunal in case of Vijay Proteins Pvt Ltd Vs CIT(A) is wholly misconceived in as much as in case of Vijay Proteins (supra) as rightly held by CIT(A) in its order, goods were found to have been purchased and sold which remained unaccounted. Materials thus have been received and used in the production of goods sold undisputedly whereas in the present Tax Appeal neither the goods have been purchased nor used in production nor the same were sold out without accounting in the account books or clandestinely. Here is the case w....