2018 (3) TMI 1685

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....tances of case and in law, Ld. CIT(A) erred in confirming addition u/s 69C amount Rs. 47,73,033/- on account of purchases from suspicious parties identified by sales tax authorities. 2. On the facts and circumstances of case and in law, Ld. CIT(A) erred in confirming disallowance u/s 37 amount Rs. 2,07,54,611/- being 50% purchases by treating same as bogus purchase on assumptions basis. 3. On the facts and circumstances of case and in law, Ld. CIT(A) erred in confirming addition u/s 68 amount Rs. 2,50,000/- by treating same as unexplained Cash Credit. 4. On the facts and circumstances of case and in law, Ld. CIT(A) erred in confirming addition u/s 41 amount Rs. 21,10,711/- of account of cessation of liability. The assessment for impu....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....p; 3. Aggrieved, the assessee contested the same with partial success before Ld. CIT(A) vide impugned order dated 04/08/2017 where, after considering various remand reports, additions on account of bogus / other purchases have been confirmed whereas partial relief has been granted against addition made u/s 68 & u/s 41(1) whereas expenses disallowance has been deleted altogether. Aggrieved the assessee is in further appeal before us. 4. The Ld. Authorised Representative [AR] for assessee vehemently contested the various additions by drawing our attention to the documents placed in the paper-book whereas Ld. Departmental Representative [DR] submitted that the order of Ld. CIT(A) was quite fair & reasonable. 5. We have carefully heard the r....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ases. The Ld. AR has contended that addition of alleged bogus purchases could not be made u/s 69C since the payments were through banking channels with which we are not convinced since we have already observed that the purchases reflected by the assessee were in grave doubt and the assessee miserably failed to prove the same. This fact leads us to the logical conclusion that since the assessee was engaged in trading activities, the goods must have been sourced by the assessee from somewhere else, the source of investment of which remained unexplained. Therefore, after considering the factual matrix, we estimate the impugned additions in the following manner:- No. Head Estimation of Additions Amount (Rs.) 1. Alleged Bogus Purchases 5%....