2019 (3) TMI 62

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....17 of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal. This as a revenue is adopting coercive proceedings for recovery. 2. These Appeals under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short "Act") challenge the common order dated 26th October 2017 of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (for short "Tribunal") partly allowing the Appeals filed by the Revenue. The common impugned order relates to Assessment Years 2010-2011 and 2011-2012. Hence the two Appeals filed by the Appellant against the impugned order. 3. Although numerous questions are raised in the Appeal Memos, the Appellant urges only the following basic identical re-framed questions of law for our consideration :- "Whether on the facts and circumstance of the case and in law, w....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....grieved, the Respondent filed an Appeal to the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [CIT(A)]. By order dated 7th October, 2015 the CIT (A) found that even if the purchase transactions are not verifiable what is taxable is only the income component and not the entire purchase. Therefore on finding that the gross profit ratio for the subject Assessment Year was much less than the average gross profit of earlier three assessment years it adopted the average gross profit for the earlier these assessments years at 3.67%. Thus, the CIT(A) sustained the addition of Rs. 5,69,087/- being the profit/income element and deleted the remaining amount of Rs. 4,11,87,918. Thus partly allowing the Appeals of the Respondent. 7. Being aggrieved by the orde....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... various evidences produced by the Appellant-Assessee and relied upon third party information to hold that the Appellant-Assessee's purchases were bogus. This is without having been given any opportunity to the Appellant-Assessee to cross examine the person on whose statement the Revenue was relying upon. 9. We find that all the authorities under the Act have come to a finding of fact that substantial purchases made by the Appellant - Assessee were bogus in nature. Only issue on which there is a divergence of views between the authorities is in respect of extent of disallowance. This conclusion of the purchases being bogus by Authorities under the Act is on the basis of appreciation of entire evidence on record. It is important to....