AI Drafter 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2018 (2) TMI 1632
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....l appeals the assessee has raised identical grounds of appeal except variation of figure of additions of 25% of bogus purchases and 1% commission on such purchases. All appeals were heard together and are decided by consolidated order for the sake of convenience. For appreciations of the facts we are referring the facts for Assessment Year 2009-10 in ITA No 5063/M/2017. 2. Facts in brief are that the assessee is carrying his business in the name and style as M/s Hitesh Steel Syndicate. The assessee is in business trading in Iron and steel. The assessee has filed return of income for A.Y.2009-10, on 29.09.2011 declaring total income of Rs, 6,01,930/-. The case was re-opened u/s 147 on account of information received by the Sales Tax Depar....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
..... The assessee has debited commission payment of Rs. 36,638/-. Thus, the assessing officer took his view that the brokerage claim is also pertains to all purchases and thereby further disallowed 1% of total purchases i.e disallowed Rs. 3,52,132/- On appeal before the ld. CIT(A), the action of Assessing Officer in reopening as well as additions were sustained. Thus, further aggrieved by the order of ld. CIT(A), the assessee has filed the present appeal before us. 3. We have heard the learned AR of the assessee and the ld. DR for the Revenue and perused the material available on record. The ld. AR of the assessee submits that all the transactions are genuine and inconsonance with the sales tax Act, Income-tax Act and other laws applicable.....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... No. 2447/Mum/2015) dated 21.02.2017 * ACIT v/s Tarla Shah (ITA No. 5295/MUM/2013) dated 02.02.2016 * ITO - 25(2)(2) v/s Shri Paresh Arvind Gandhi (ITA No. 5706/MUM/2013 dated 13.05.2015) * Asstt. Commissioner of Income Tax - 25(2) v/s Shri Ramila Pravin Shah (ITA No.5246/Mum/2013) dated 5.03.2015 * Shri Ganpatraj A Sanghavi v/s ACIT (ITA No2826/MUM/2013) * ITO vs. Deepak Popatlal Gala (ITAT Mumbai) * Ramesh Kumar & Co vs. AC1T (ITAT Mumbai) * DCIT 25(3) v/s Shri Rajeev G. Kalathil (ITA No.6727/MUM/2012 dated 20.08.2014) * The Commissioner of Income Taxi, Mumbai vs M/s. Nikunj Eximp Enterprises Pvt. Ltd. 4. On the other hand, the ld. DR for the Revenue supported the ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e parties. The assessee furnished the copy of bills of corresponding purchases, ledger account of the parties and proof of payment through banking channel. The assessee also furnished the corresponding sale and details of vendors. The submission of assessee was not accepted by AO holding that no lorry receipt, transportation details, weight receipt, excise and gate pass was produced by the assessee. The AO further observed that the assessee failed to produce the supplier. The AO concluded that there was no actual delivery of goods and that assessee obtained accommodation bill. The purchases were made by cash payment. Thus, the AO rejected the books of account of the assessee. The AO disallowed the 25% of the total purchases from 11 parties.....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....IT(A) holding as astonishing and highly unique. The lower authorities have not examined the trade practice. The lower authority has not disputed the corresponding sale against the purchases. No evidence was brought on record about the observation of AO about the cash purchases. 7. The ld. AR of the Assessee in his submission claimed that VAT rate is only 4%. The rate of VAT is not disputed by Revenue. In our view considering the nature of trade of assessee and the facts of the present case, the disallowance made by AO and sustained by ld. CIT(A) is excessive and unreasonable. In our view the assessee has given sufficient evidences to substantiate its purchases, on which no finding was given by the lower authorities. Moreover, no incrimin....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ound No.2 relates to disallowance/addition on account of commission. We have noted that the disallowance of commission is based on assumption and presumptions of assessing officer. The assessing officer has not brought any material on record to substantiate his action. Thus, the addition on account of 1% of total purchases added by AO is deleted. 10. Ground No.3 relates to levy of interest. This ground of appeal is consequential and need not adjudication. 11. Ground No. 4 relates to rejection of books of account. We have partly sustained the addition. Thus, in our view, the discussions on this ground of appeal have become academic. 12. In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed. ITA No. 5064/Mum/2017 for AY 2010-11 ....