TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2019 (5) TMI 1504
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....are rejected arbitrarily or by relying on citations distinguishable on facts of the assessee or by not accepting the citations cited by the assessee applicable on the facts of the assessee. 3. The Ld. CIT (A) has not adjudicated the ground of appeal No. 6 particularly agitating for not providing collected material, if any & statements retracted in spite of written request for rebuttal. 4. The Ld. CIT(A) has erred on facts and in law in ignoring the chain of original documents for import of diamonds by Sh. Praveen Jain/Nilesh Parmar group available with tax authorities in collected & seized material at the time of search as per the disclosure of said facts by Nilesh Parmar in his affidavit for retraction of the statement made u/s 132(4) being clinching evidence of procurement of diamonds from importers for making the genuine supplies from the same by M/s Mohit International to the assesee. 5. The Ld. CIT(A) has erred on facts and in law in confirming an above addition by treating conclusive 'general admission & description in the relevant extract of the statements u/s 132(4) of Praveen Kumar Jain prop, of M/s Mohit International provided to the assessee which was recorded on t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ills of bogus purchases instead of confirming the whole addition of Rs. 17,03,772/- (Rs. 16,90,250/- + Rs. 13,522/-) made by AO. iii) The appellant craves leave to add, alter or amend any / all the grounds of appeal before or during the course of hearing of appeal. 4. The brief facts of the case are that assessee had filed the return of income on 31.10.2007 declaring the total income of Rs. 22,47,080/-. Later on, the income of the assessee was assessed under section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short "Act") at returned income. The assessee is engaged in the business of manufacturing and trading of jewellery in proprietorship status. Subsequently, an information was received from the office of the Addl. DIT(Inv.), Delhi-VI, New Delhi, regarding beneficiaries of accommodation entries provided by Praveen Kumar Jain group in which a search and seizure action was carried out on 01.10.2013 by Investigation Wing, Mumbai. As per the information, M/s AL Jewellers (Proprietor Ashok Kumar Jain) received accommodation entries in respect of bogus purchase transaction amounting to Rs. 67,61,000/-. Accordingly, with reasonable belief that income chargeable to tax has escaped assessme....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....f M/s Mohit International, was also recorded under section 131 of the Act on 02.10.2013 wherein, he admitted that M/s Mohit International is indulged in providing the accommodation entries only and no genuine business activity is carried out by them and therefore, the alleged purchase are thus nothing but mere accommodation entries and no real purchase transaction has occurred in this case. AO by relying upon the decision of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in similar case of bogus purchase in the case of CIT vs. La Medica 2001 250 ITR 575 wherein, it was held that "when there are evidences to suggest that fictitious arrangement has been made to inflate the purchases, AO is right in treating the purchases as bogus within the meaning of section 37 of the Act." Accordingly, the purchases of Rs. 67,61,000/- being bogus accommodation entries were disallowed and added back to the income of the assessee by assessing the income of the assessee at Rs. 90,08,800/- u/s. 147/143(3) of the Act vide order dated 19.02.2015. Against the assessment order dated 19.2.2015, assessee appealed before the Ld. CIT(A), who vide his impugned order dated 27.06.2017 has partly allowed the appeal of the assessee.....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....of 27.05% already declared in Form 3CD during the year by the assessee. It was further submitted that Ld. CIT(A) has wrongly confirmed the addition of Rs. 16,90,250/-(25% of 67,61,000/-) by assuming that the assessee has got the diamond from grey market while procuring bills from accommodation entry provider. It was further submitted that Ld. CIT(A) has erred in upholding the additional arbitrary addition on assumption and presumption basis of Rs. 13,522/- (0.2% of 67,61,000/-) u/s. 69C on account of alleged commission payment in trade to obtain bogus bills in cash from unaccounted sources not accounted for in cash book. In view of above submissions, Ld. Counsel for the assessee has requested to set aside the issues in dispute to the file of the AO for fresh consideration. 6. On the contrary, Ld. DR has opposed the request of the Ld. Counsel for the assessee for setting aside the issues in dispute to the file of the AO for fresh consideration. However, he stated that Ld. CIT(A) has wrongly erred in confirming the addition to the tune of Rs. 17,03,772/- (i.e. 25% of the addition on account of bogus purchases plus commission @1.2% on total purchases) instead of the entire bogus purc....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....it has been held as under: "According to us, not allowing the assessee to cross-examine the witnesses by the Adjudicating Authority though the statements of those witnesses were made the basis of the impugned order is a serious flaw which makes the order nullity inasmuch as it amounted to violation of principles of natural justice because of which the assessee was adversely affected. It is to be borne in mind that the order of the Commissioner was based upon the statements given by the aforesaid two witnesses. Even when the assessee disputed the correctness of the statements and wanted to cross-examine, the Adjudicating Authority did not grant this opportunity to the assessee. It would be pertinent to note that in the impugned order passed by the Adjudicating Authority he has specifically mentioned that such an opportunity was sought by the assessee. However, no such opportunity was granted and the aforesaid plea is not even dealt with by the Adjudicating Authority. As far as the Tribunal is concerned, we find that rejection of this plea is totally untenable. The Tribunal has simply stated that cross-examination of the said dealers could not have brought out any material which ....