2017 (6) TMI 485

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....A) as made by the AO under section 69C of the Income Tax Act, 1961 on account of unexplained expenditure in respect of bogus purchases by ignoring the facts that the notices under section 133(6) were returned unserved and investigation carried out by the Sales Tax Department of Government of Maharashtra. 3. The assessee has also filed cross-objection challenging the order of ld. CIT(A) in sustenance of addition to the tune of 12% of the total bogus purchases which worked out to Rs. 8,57,760/- and prayed that in view of the decision in the case of CIT V/s Simit P Seth (356 ITR 451) Gujarat High Court the addition should be restricted to 3,39,530/- on the ground that the assessee has already reflected GP margin of 7.25% and balance needs to ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... also not being questioned by the AO in terms of the genuineness of the cheques or the sources, of the payments through the relevant bank account, but it also remains a fact that the said parties were not found at the given address and they also featured in the list of suspected parties of the Sales Tax Department. The appellant, while giving the account payee cheques, statements, confirmations, ledger accounts of the' sellers and also giving quantitative details in terms of sales made etc however, has also been unable to provide with any actual delivery challans of any of the goods transported during the year'. In the light of the above facts 'where the factor of ,purchases is not being disputed, but the genuineness of the sell....