TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2016 (6) TMI 1139
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 'C' (hereinafter referred to as 'the Tribunal'), the assessee has preferred the present Tax Appeals assailing the following orders Tax Appeal No. Date of Tribunal's order ITA No. Assessment Year 240 of 2003 24.01.2003 IT (SS) No. 16/Ahd/2002 01.04.1988 to 24.02.1999 241 of 2003 24.01.2003 IT (SS) No. 38/Ahd/2002 01.04.1988 to 24.02.1999 242 of 2003 24.01.2003 IT (SS) No. 15/Ahd/2002 01.04.1988 to 24.02.1999 1.1 Similarly, being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment and order passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Ahmedabad Bench 'C' (hereinafter referred to as 'the Tribunal'), the revenue has preferred the present Tax Appeals assailing the following orders: ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....aid two parties to warrant such additions ?? Tax Appeal No. 242 of 2003 Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, Income-tax Appellate Tribunal was justified in retaining the addition on account of alleged bogus purchases at 25% i.e. Rs. 3 crores of the total purchases amounting to Rs. 11.99 crores? Tax Appeal No. 260 of 2003 Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, Income-tax Appellate Tribunal was justified in retaining the addition on account of alleged bogus purchases at 25% i.e. Rs. 3 crores of the total purchases amounting to Rs. 11.99 crores? Tax Appeal No. 261 of 2003 Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, Income tax Appellate Tribunal was justified in retainin....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....the Tribunal erred in holding that 25% of Rs. 2.92 crores is undisclosed income as defined under Section 158B(b) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. He submitted that the Tribunal erred when on one hand it accepted the purchases to be genuine and then went ahead to estimate 25% thereof as the undisclosed income without a shred of evidence to that effect found in search. 4.1 Mr. Shah further submitted that the Tribunal failed to appreciate that in accordance with the decision of this Court in the case of N.R. Paper and Board Ltd vs. Dy. CIT reported in [1998] 234 ITR 733 (Guj), the addition which the Tribunal foisted on the assessee could be if at all the subject matter of the regular assessment and not the block assessment more particularly whe....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... again add gross profit of Rs. 3,70,78,125/- or any portion thereof to the (undisclosed) income of the assessee. He submitted that the Tribunal failed to appreciate that the Assessing Officer had solely without application of mind relied on appraisal report of A.D.I.T., the copy of which was never supplied to the assessee. 4.5 Mr. Shah has relied upon the decisions of this Court in the case of CIT vs. Nangalia Fabrics reported in 220 Taxman 17 (Guj), DCIT vs. Radhe Developers India Ltd reported in [2010] 329 ITR 1 (Guj) and N.R. Paper & Board Ltd vs. DCIT [1998] 234 ITR 733 (Guj) in support of his submissions. 4.6 Mr. Shah submitted that the case of Vijay Proteins Ltd is not applicable on the facts of the present case. Drawing attenti....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....decision in the case of Vijay Proteins Ltd. 6. The Tribunal in the case of Vijay Proteins Ltd. vs. CIT has observed that it would be just and proper to direct the Assessing Officer to restrict the addition in respect of the undisclosed income relating to the purchases to 25% of the total purchases. The said decision was confirmed by this Court as well. On consideration of the matter, we find that the facts of the present case are identical to those of M/s. Indian Woollen Carpet Factory (supra) or M/s. Vijay Proteins Ltd. In the present case the Tribunal has categorically observed that the assessee had shown bogus purchases amounting to Rs. 2,92,93,288/- and taxing only 25% of these bogus claim goes against the principles of Sections 68 a....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....a Marketing in assessment which has been framed u/s.158BC of the Act, despite the fact that in proceedings under Section 132 of the Act no material was found in relation to said two parties to warrant such additions is concerned, we are of the view that the Tribunal is justified in holding the same against the assessee and in favour of the revenue. 8. So far as the question regarding addition of Rs. 3,70,78,125/- as gross profit on sales of Rs. 37.08 crores made by the Assessing Officer despite the fact that the said sales had admittedly been recorded in the regular books during Financial Year 1997-98 is concerned, we are of the view that the assessee cannot be punished since sale price is accepted by the revenue. Therefore, even if 6% g....