AI OCR 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2017 (1) TMI 1329
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short 'the Act') dated 28/02/2014. Since, common issues are involved in these appeals/cross objections, they are being clubbed together and a consolidated order is passed for the sake of convenience and brevity. 2. Since the dispute in both the assessment years stand on a similar footing, we may take up the Cross appeals for assessment year 2010-11. The Revenue has raised the following Grounds of appeal:- "1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law the Ld. C.I.T (A) erred in deleting the addition of Rs. 4,70,32,085/- made on account of non genuine purchases from various parties and directing the AO to delete the entire addition of Rs. 4,70,32,085/- even though some of these parties are ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... have prepared a comprehensive list of traders who were providing bogus purchase bill without any delivery or transfer of goods and the assessee had never challenged the existence of the list published by the Sales Tax Department. 4. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. C.I.T. (A) erred in directing the Assessing Officer to delete the addition made on account of bogus purchases without taking into consideration the decision in the case of Juggilal Kamlapat Vs CIT 73 ITR 702 (SC), wherein it was held that the Assessing Officer could go behind the legal form and find out substance having regard to the economic realities behind the legal facade. 5. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....CIT CA) erred In upholding reopening of assessment u/s 148 without appreciating that: " i) The assessment was reopened on the basis of information received from DGIT (lnv), Mumbai without forming any belief as to income has escaped assessment. Therefore, as per section 147, such reopening is invalid. ii) There was no "reason to believe" as there was no live link of tangible material with formation of belief that income has escaped assessment, hence, invalid. 2. The Respondent prays that reopening of assessment may be quashed and held to be void ab-initio. 3. The respondent craves leave to add, alter or amend any or all the above grounds of cross-objection at the time of hearing or before." 3. Although the Revenue has raised multipl....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... the sale tax department of Maharashtra and during the course of survey on the assessee. In the ensuing assessment, the Assessing Officer held the purchases made by the assessee from 25 parties, totaling to Rs. 4,70,32,085/- as bogus on the ground that the notices issued to such parties under section 133(6) of the Act could either not be served or where served, it was not responded by the concerned parties. The assessee carried the matter in appeal before CIT(A), making detailed submissions. The CIT(A) noticed that the assessee had submitted complete documentary evidences such as ledger account of the parties, confirmation from the parties, bank statements reflecting payments to parties through account payee cheques, copy of invoices, purch....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....lly acceptable G.P rate of 10% in assessee's line of business. Therefore, for assessment year 2011-12, the CIT(A) confirmed an addition to the extent of Rs. 17,27,223/- being the difference in G.P actually declared by the assessee at 8.60% and 10.00%, which was considered as an acceptable level of G.P. As a consequence, for assessment year 2011-12, the CIT(A) retained a disallowance of Rs. 17,27,223/- as against the addition of Rs. 2,32,86,685/- made by the Assessing Officer. Ostensibly, the CIT(A) not only differed with the Assessing Officer on the issue of bogus purchases, but also changed the basis of the part addition retained by her. 5. In the above background, we have heard the rival parties and the relevant material has been perused....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....refully considered the rival submissions. It is quite clear that at the level of the Assessing Officer, the purchases have been held to be unverifiable primarily for the reason that the notices issued by the Assessing Officer under section133(6) of the Act were either not served or if they were served, the same were not responded to by the respective parties. In contrast, the CIT(A) has recorded a categorical finding in para 6.29 to 6.30 of her order and has observed that the purchases were liable to be held as genuine and not bogus. In the context of assessment year 2010-11, we find that the said findings of the CIT(A) have not been assailed by the Revenue and cannot be said to be based on irrelevant material. Even before us, the Ld. Depar....