TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2017 (10) TMI 1247
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....n from property authority. 3. On this issue, learned Counsel of the assessee did not elaborate and did not make any cogent submission. Accordingly, this ground is dismissed. 4. Next common ground raised is that learned CIT(A) erred in confirming the addition on alleged bogus purchase at the rate of 12.5% of the bogus purchases. 5. On this issue, the A.O. has received Information from DGlT(lnv.)Mumbai through the office of CIT-5, Mumbai that the assessee has taken the accommodation entries from the foliowing hawala entities. A.Y.2009-10 Sr. No. Name of the Bogus Party PAN Amount (Rs.) 1 Sagar Enterprises ACTPS9740C 2,28,486 2 Ambika Enterprises AFFPB5446R 87,329 3 Aayush Enterprises AG....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e profit @ 35% on the bogus purchases which the appellant might have earned additionally by buying the same material in a grey market and manipulating the invoices by obtaining them from the above parties for accommodation in the books. 6. Upon assessee's appeal, the learned CIT(A) referred to the decision of the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in the case of Simit P.Seth (356 ITR 451). The learned CIT(A) concluded as under:- "In the instant case, the appellant has failed to produce any independent evidence to prove the purchases like transport bills, delivery challans etc. either during assessment proceedings or during appellate proceedings. With regard to the information received from DIT(lnv.), Mumbai the summary of the communicat....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....es like transport bills, delivery challens, mode of transportation either during the assessment proceedings or during the appellate proceedings. 9. The learned Departmental Representative has submitted that in a similar case of bogus purchase, Gujarat High Court in IT Appeal No.240 of 2003 in the case of N.K.Industry v. DCIT in order dated 20.06.2016 wherein 100% of the bogus purchases has been held to be added in the hands of the assessee and Tribunal's restriction of addition to 25% of the bogus purchases was set aside. The Special Leave Petition against this order has been dismissed by the Hon'ble Apex Court by order dated 16.01.2017. 10. However, I find that it may not be appropriate in this case to take away the relief that has b....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... of appellate proceedings, the claim of depreciation is as under:- As per depreciation schedule for IT purposes. Name of the assets Amt. of addition Amount of Depreciation Computer 21,154 15,591 Crane machine 20,25,000 1,51,875 Tools and dyes 2,03,100 15,233 Plant & Machinery --- --- Total 22,49,254 1,82,699 As per written submissions dated 23/11/2016 filed before us. Name of the assets Amt. of addition Amount of Depreciation Computer 21,154 3,000 Crane machine 20,25,000 25,515 Tools and dyes 3,04,836 12,692 Plant & Machinery 20,000 1,51,875 Total 23,70,990 1,93,082 As seen from the above - (i) the ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nt on the premises that the sales have not been doubted. However no such presumption can be made in the case of purchase for fixed assets. Assessee having failed to provide any evidence for the purchase of fixed assets cannot be granted 12.5% allowance for fixed assets purchased on adhoc basis. Hence, I do not find any infirmity in the orders of the authorities below on this issue. Hence I confirm the same. 16. One issue raised in assessment year 2009-2010 is that CIT(A) erred in confirming the addition of Rs. 5,80,000 which also taxed in the hands of Director and same income cannot be taxed double time. 17. On this issue, during the course of assessment proceedings, the AO has noticed that the assessee has debited remuneration (to tw....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....em from Rs. 4.20,000/- to Rs. 10,00,000/- is justified. I do not agree with the argument of the Id.AR. As seen from the details filed during appeal proceedings there was a slight increase of turnover from 8.69 cr. to 11 -02 cr. between A.Y.2008-09 and 2009-10 and there was slight increase in turnover from 11.34 cr. to Rs. 15.80 cr. between these A.Y.2010- 11 and 2011-12. But there is no justification given to show that this increase in turnover is only because of the efforts made by these two directors and nobody else. The increase in turnover could be because of several factors including the increase in the sale price of the material dealt by the assessee. Further, there is no justification given for such a hike of remuneration (more than ....