2018 (6) TMI 1051

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....nt of bogus purchases. Assessee is also aggrieved for reopening of assessment. 3. Rival contentions have been heard and record perused. 4. The brief facts of the case are that the Sales Tax Authorities of Mumbai had carried out an investigation in those cases where there were defaults of VAT set off credits. During the course of investigation it was found that there were certain parties who were engaged in the business of issuing bills as per the requirement of the customer, no goods were transacted in these transactions and only bills were issued as per demand and requirement of the customer. These parties were surveyed by the Sales Tax Authorities and statements of the authorized persons were recorded. These persons had stated during in....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ame and that it is not the case of the Department that assessee had shown lower GP in respect of the sales made out of goods purchased from alleged bogus suppliers. 7. Learned AR further submitted that ld.CIT(A) by relying on the decision of Gujarat High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Simit Sheth (2013) [38 taxmann.com 385 (Guj. HC)] had held that 12.5% of the alleged bogus purchases shall be disallowed. 8. It was also submitted that the facts of instant case is distinguishable from the facts of decisions relied upon by the Id. CIT(A) as under: With respect to the decision of CIT vs. Simit Sheth, it was argued that: * The judgment in the case of Simit Sheth is relevant to assessment year AY 2006-07 whereas the appellant's case pert....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....94/Mum/2014)[Mum ITAT] * Rajesh P Soni vs. ACIT [100 TTJ 892](2006)(Ahd. Trib) * CIT vs. Nikunj Eximp Enterprises (P) Ltd., (35 Taxmann.com 384) (Bom.) * Ramesh Kumar & Co., vs. ACIT (ITA No.2959/ Mum/2014) (Mum.ITAT) * Hiralal Chunilal Jain vs. ITO (ITA No.4547/Mum/2014) (Mum.ITAT) * DCIT vs. Rajeev G. Kalathil (67 SOT 52)(Mum.ITAT) * ITO vs. Paresh Arvind Gandhi (ITA No.5706/Mum/2013)(Mum.ITAT) 11. On the other hand, learned DR relied on the order of the AO and contended that he has very reasonably made addition by estimating profit at 17.74%. 12. We have considered rival contentions and carefully gone through the orders of the authorities below. We have also gone through the judicial pronouncements cited before us as....