2018 (4) TMI 1217

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ons have been heard and record perused. Assessee us engaged in trading of steel. During the course of scrutiny assessment, AO made addition on account of bogus purchases by observing that Sales Tax Department has provided information to the effect that parties from whom assessee has made the purchases do not genuinely exist and these were only hawala dealers. Accordingly, AO added 25% of such purchases in assessee's income. 4. By the impugned order, CIT(A) restricted the addition to the extent of 12.5%. By observing that in the case of Bholanath Polyfab Ltd., Hon'ble Gujarat High Court has approved the proposition with regard to inflation in purchase price of goods for the purchases so made from such dealer. 5. Against the above order....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... Sales 15,08,45,128 13,19,07,011 Purchase 15,06,39,154 13.17,09,973 Gross Profit 2,05,974 1,97,038 GP (% ) 0.14% 0.15% 7. The assessee has made has made purchases from the above concern & corresponding sales are tallied. Nature of business is such that the purchases are always connected to sales & goods are delivered to customers' place directly from the suppliers. 8. Learned AR also relied on the following judicial pronouncements:- 1. ACIT vs. Mahesh K. Shah (ITAT Mumbai) (ITA No. 5194/Mum/2014) 2. DCIT vs. Shri Shivshankar R. Sharma (ITAT Mumbai) (ITA No.5149/Mum/2014 &ITA No.4260/Mum/2015) 3. Rajesh P. Soni v. ACIT (2006) 100 TTJ 892 (Ahd.)(Trib.) 4. ITO vs.....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....invoices issued on 07.08.2009). He further contended that supplier did not respond to the notice issued by AO. 10. We have considered rival contentions and carefully gone through the orders of the authorities below. We have also deliberated on the judicial pronouncements referred by lower authorities in their respective orders as well as cited by learned AR during the course of hearing before us in the context of factual matrix of the case. From the record, we found that 25% of purchases alleged to be bogus was added by AO in assessee's income. CIT(A) has reduced same to 12.5%. Before the AO, assessee has filed year wise details of purchases, details of payment made through account payee cheque. In addition to the purchase details, asses....