TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2019 (2) TMI 1632
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....(a) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Hon'ble ITAT was justified in not confirming the addition made by the Assessing Officer on account of bogus purchases shown to have been made through hawala transactions from certain parties who were only providing accommodation sale bills? (b) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, where evidently no purchases were made from these parties who were issuing only bogus accommodation bills and this finding has been accepted by the CIT(A) and the ITAT, the ITAT, without any evidence, was justified in presuming that there must have been purchases and thereupon giving huge relief to the assessee ? (c) Whether on the facts and in ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....hout purchases there cannot be sales. He, therefore, held that under these circumstances A.O. was not correct in adding the entire amount of purchases as the assessee's income. He, therefore, deleted the addition refreshing it to 10 % of the purchase amount. He also directed the A.O. to make addition to the extent of difference between the gross profit rate as per the books of accounts on undisputed purchases and gross profit on sales relating to the purchases made from the said three parties. 4 The assessee carried the matter before the Tribunal. The Revenue also carried the issue before the Tribunal. The Tribunal in the impugned Judgment allowed the appeal of the assessee partly and dismissed that of the Revenue. The Tribunal noted ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....es amounting to Rs. 2,92,93,288/- and taxing only 25 % of these bogus claim goes against the principles of Sections 68 and 69C of the Income Tax Act. The entire purchases shown on the basis of fictitious invoices have been debited in the trading account since the transaction has been found to be bogus. The Tribunal having once come to a categorical fiding that the amount of Rs. 2,92,93,288/- represented alleged purchases from bogus suppliers it was not incumbent on it to restrict the disallowance to only Rs. 73,23,322/-." 6 Counsel pointed out that the S.L.P. against such decision was dismissed by the Supreme Court. 7 On the other hand, Ms Khan learned counsel for the assessee opposed the appeals contending that the Tribunal has given p....