TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2018 (1) TMI 506
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ds of appeal before us:- "1. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, whether the Ld. CIT (A) was justified in sustaining only an addition (c)12.5% profit rate on total purchases of Rs. 61,50,710/- made from 2 parties of a group concern of M/s. Bhanwarlal group of companies, who were in the business of providing accommodation entries as established by the investigating wing consequent to search action u/s 132 of the I.T. Act, 1961. 2. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, whether the Ld. CIT(A) was justified in sustaining only an addition (c) 12.5% profit rate on total purchases of Rs. 61,50,710/- made from 2 parties as the assessee failed to substantiate the said purchases before Assessing O....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....t failed to produce the account books and the stock register. The A.O observed that a perusal of the purchase and sales details produced by the assessee revealed that the same could not be matched. It was further observed by the A.O that despite the fact that the assessee had total turnover of 3.02 crore, but however no expenditure was booked under the head transportation charges and freight charges. The assessee further failed to produce the delivery challans, lorry receipts, transportation details etc. in order to support the genuineness of the purchase transactions under consideration. That in the backdrop of the aforesaid facts the A.O issued a notice u/s. 133(6) of the Act to the aforementioned parties, however, all of the said notices....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....but the goods under consideration had in fact entered the assessee's regular business premises. The A.O thus being the view that as the assessee had failed to give any evidence or cogent explanation as to how the goods under consideration which had not been purchased from the aforementioned parties, had still came in his possession, thus concluded that the assessee had incurred expenditure on such purchases, which he however had failed to fully explain with documentary evidence. The A.O thus on the basis of his aforesaid conviction made an addition of the entire amount of the bogus purchase of Rs. 61,56,710/- in the hands of the assessee. 4. The assessee being aggrieved with the order passed by the A.O carried the matter in appeal before....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he aggregate value of the bogus purchases made by the assessee from the aforementioned parties. 5. The revenue being aggrieved with the order of the CIT(A) had carried the matter in appeal before us. That despite being put to notice as regards the date of hearing of the appeal, the assessee respondent had failed to make an appearance before us. We thus being left with no other alternative proceed with and dispose of this appeal as per Rule 25 after hearing the appellant revenue. The ld. Departmental Representative (for short 'D.R') during the course of hearing of the appeal relied on the order passed by the A.O and averred that in the backdrop of the facts involved in the case, the A.O had rightly made an addition of the entire amount of....