TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2018 (4) TMI 384
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....led by the Revenue against the common order of CIT(A)-I, Nashik, dated 13-07-2016 for the A.Yrs. 2010-11 & 2011-12. Assessee has also filed Cross Objections against the appeals filed by the Revenue for the A.Yrs. 2010-11 and 2011-12 vide C.O.Nos. 37 and 38/PUN/2016. There is no cross appeal by the Revenue for the A.Y. 2009- 10. Since there are common issues involved in all these appeals they are clubbed together and are taken up for adjudication in this composite order for the sake of convenience. We shall first take up the asessee's appeal for A.Y. 2009-10. ITA No.2530/PUN/2016 Assessment Year : 2009-10 - By Assessee 2. Grounds raised by the assessee read as under : "1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Rs. 18,50,403/- to the total income of the assessee and determined the income at Rs. 21,05,200/-. 5. In the First Appellate Proceedings, the assessee questioned the addition of entire bogus purchases made by the assessee for the assessment years under consideration. Assessee also raised the issue relating to validity of the reassessment u/s.147 of the Act qua the availability of tangible material for invoking the said provisions. CIT(A) dismissed the validity of the re-assessment proceedings linked objections raised by the assessee and relied heavily on the judgment ACIT Vs. Rajesh Jhaveri Stock Brokers Pvt. Ltd. reported in 291 ITR 500 and others. Contents of Para No.4 to 4.13 of the order of CIT(A) contains the discussion of CIT(A) in h....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....l in the case of M/s. Chhabi Electricals Pvt. Ltd. (supra) relied on by the Ld. Counsel for the assessee. We have also examined the applicability of the judgment in the case of ACIT Vs. Rajesh Jhaveri Stock Brokers Pvt. Ltd. (supra). Regarding the issue relating to re-assessment and its validity, we find on similar circumstances, the Coordinate Bench of the Tribunal dismissed the arguments of the Ld Counsel for the assessee by relying on the decision of Coordinate Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Mr. Khan Afzalhussain Mohd. Saie Vs. DCIT - ITA Nos. 2708 and 2709/PUN/2016, dated 23-03- 2018. For the sake of completeness, we proceed to extract the relevant para of the order of Tribunal and the same is extracted as under : "9. The first....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....sing goods and its sales. In such circumstances, at best, higher gross profit rate can be applied. Following our decision in earlier orders, we hold that GP rate of 10% over and above GP declared by the assessee in its books of account, be applied to work out the additional income in the hands of assessee. The ground of appeal No.3 raised by the assessee is thus, partly allowed." Considering the same, we direct the Assessing Officer to make addition in the hands of assessee by adopting GP rate at 10% of bogus purchases declared by the assessee. Accordingly, Ground No. 2 raised by the assessee is partly allowed. Thus, the grounds raised by the assessee are partly allowed. 10. In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed. Now w....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....n it was clear from the conduct of the assessee, the parties found missing and results of the investigation of another Govt. Department (Sales Tax), that the purchases could not be proved as genuine and therefore the disallowance by the AO was justified? 5. Whether the Ld CIT(A) erred in presuming that simply because no addition was made in case of Sales, it was accepted as genuine and further assuming that thereby purchases should be genuine? 6. Whether the Ld. CIT(A) erred in accepting the affidavits from suppliers without any explanation from the assessee why the suppliers could not appear before the AO when they were called for examination, subsequently and details such as copies of accounts, bank transactions were not produced? ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....de addition of alleged bogus purchases to the total income of the assessee and determined the income at Rs. 22,36,030/- for the A.Y. 2010-11. Similar is the case for A.Y. 2011-12. AO made entire addition of alleged bogus purchases Rs. 36,24,007/- to the total income of the assessee. 13. In the First Appellate proceedings, assessee raised a legal issue relating to the validity of reassessment proceedings as well as on merits. In reply, CIT(A) vide his common order dated 13-07-2017 dismissed the issue relating to validity of reassessment proceedings relying on the decision of Apex Court judgment in the case of ACIT Vs. Rajesh Jhaveri Stock Brokers Pvt. Ltd. and others and restricted the disallowance on merits to 25% of the purchases, i.e. R....