TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2012 (5) TMI 816
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Mine-O-Gems and M/s. Vinayak Overseas, were not genuine and that as such, no corresponding export of these goods could exist. On this basis, by invoking the provisions of section 68 of the Act, the AO held that the sale proceeds recorded in the books of account of the assessee represented unexplained credit and accordingly, the entire export sale proceeds of Rs. 4,29,74,424 were taken as income of the assessee and the claim of deduction under section 80HHC was disallowed. In appeal, the CIT(A) confirmed the assessment order and the assessee filed a further appeal before the Tribunal. The Tribunal, by virtue of its order dated 12-9-2008, set aside the issue to the file of the AO, with the following observations (relevant portion) : "10... The pertinent sic already exist in source file and circumstances of the case, the application of section 68 is justified. There is small (sic) objection of the assessee that material used against the assessee was not put to the assessee in accordance with law. 11... It is not the case of the assessee that above provision is not applicable to alleged sale receipts. Sale receipt can be treated like any other credit; assessee called ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ending upon the facts and the circumstances of the case. In other cases some reasonable amount may have to be allowed as deduction towards purchases. The present case where purchases were held to be bogus, those could have been disallowed. But that has not been done and alleged sales assessed under section 68 of the IT Act. 12. The sale receipts have been treated as bogus as purchases were bogus and assessee was dealing with people indulging in giving Hawala entries only. This was done without examining the nature of the credit entries and without providing reasonable opportunity to the assessee to explain those credit entries. The explanation of the assessee relating to the credit entries has not been examined at all. There is no doubt that burden of proof to prove that credit entries are genuine, is on the assessee. But the question of discharge of burden is required to be decided on examination and appraisal of material available on record. The present case was decided without such appraisal and without considering the question with reference to material relating to the credit entries. We have held above that reasonable opportunity was not afforded to the assessee as, i....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....fit of the assessee at Rs. 59,52,434, as against that of Rs. 2,35,22,830 which had been declared by the assessee and, accordingly, allowed a deduction of Rs. 47,48,494 under s. 80HHC of the Act to the assessee. While making the above calculation, however, the AO ignored the purchases declared by the assessee at Rs. 1,92,87,608. 4. The assessee filed an appeal before the CIT(A), challenging the said action of the AO, mainly on two grounds, i.e., that firstly, the AO, in the remand proceedings under section 254 of the Act, had passed the assessment order contrary to the specific directions issued by the Tribunal while remanding the matter, and that on merit, the AO was not justified in assuming that the assessee had made undisclosed purchases, even though there was no evidence at all on record to suggest any such purchase. 5. The CIT(A), vide order dated 15-11-2010, i.e., the order under appeal herein, accepted the contention of the assessee on merit regarding the addition of unaccounted purchases under section 69C of the Act being unjustified. However, on the issue that the AO had gone beyond the scope of the directions given by the Tribunal, he rejected the submission of the ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d both on facts and in law in rejecting the contention of the appellant that the AO cannot set up a new case in the remand proceedings under section 254 of the Act. 3. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned CIT(A) has erred both on facts and in law in not appreciating the contention of the appellant that the scope of proceedings under section 254 is limited to the directions given by the Tribunal and failure to do so will vitiate the order and hence liable to be quashed. 4. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned CIT(A) has erred both on facts and in law in rejecting the contention of the assessee that the addition made by AO by invoking the provisions of section 69C of the Act is untenable as the same was neither the case of the AO in the original assessment proceeding nor the case before the Hon'ble Tribunal. 5. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned CIT(A) has erred both on facts and in law in rejecting the contention of the appellant that the order passed by the AO is barred by limitation." 8. Regarding the cross-objections filed by the assessee, it was argued by the learned counsel for the asse....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ine, the profit declared on such exports was abnormal and that it was in that process, that the assessee had made unaccounted purchases; that unexplained investment in purchases is an entirely new source which has been set up by the AO; and that this cannot be done, as held in the following cases : (i) CIT v. Late Jawaharlal Nagpal Through LRs (1988) 171 ITR 136 (MP); (ii) Kartar Singh v. CIT (1978) 111 ITR 184 (P&H); (iii) S.P. Kochhar v. ITO (1984) 145 ITR 255 (All); (iv) Basudeo Prasad Agarwalla v. ITO & Ors. (1989) 180 ITR 388 (Cal); (v) CIT v. Mahindra & Co. (1995) 215 ITR 922 (Raj). 10. The learned counsel for the assessee further submitted that the CIT(A) was not justified in holding that there were no fetters set by the Tribunal on the AO; that the inference drawn by the CIT(A), that the Tribunal had pointed out that in cases of bogus purchases, necessary disallowance can always be made, is incorrect; that the CIT(A) has not correctly read the order of the Tribunal; that in para 11 of the Tribunal order, at p. 254 of the assessees paper book, the Tribunal has analyzed the provisions of section 68 of the Act; that on pp. 11-12 ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....and as such, it was his grievance against the addition of export sale as unexplained credit under section 68 of the Act, which was in issue before the Tribunal and accordingly, the directions of the Tribunal are limited to that issue only, i.e., verification of such export sales; that the directions are specific directions and nowhere has it been stated that the AO may pass an assessment order de novo; that on the matter of investigating the purchases beyond those recorded in the books of account, there was no other direction issued by Tribunal; that there is no discussion at all in the entire order of the Tribunal on the aspect of the assessee having made any purchases outside its books of account; that there are no directions issued by the Tribunal to make any enquiry pointing towards the aspect of any purchases having been made in the form of unexplained expenditure; that as such, the AO has clearly gone beyond the mandate of the order of the Tribunal; that the scope of the derivative jurisdiction has been illegally enlarged by the AO by entering in a totally new realm, which was not permissible in law; that hence, the addition made by the AO deserves to be deleted at the very t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....f the Act, by allowing the assessee to support its case and explain the credit entries. No more. 18. In the second round, vide the assessment order dated 31-12-2009, however, while once again holding the purchases made by the assessee from M/s Mine-O-Gems and M/s Vinayak Overseas to be bogus, the AO, though he accepted the export sales of the assessee, declared at Rs. 4,29,74,424, which had been added by the AO in the first round, rejected the GP rate of 55.12 per cent on these sales, as declared by the assessee, holding it to be too high. Instead, the AO considered a GP rate of 14 per cent to be appropriate and applied the same to the declared export sales, computing the purchases at a hypothetical Rs. 3,59,58,004. Holding that these purchases of Rs. 3,59,58,004 had not been disclosed by the assessee, the AO added this amount to the income of the assessee under the provisions of section 69C of the Act. 19. While in the first round, no deduction had been allowed by the AO to the assessee under the provisions of section 80HHC of the Act, in the second round, recomputing the profit of the assessee at Rs. 59,52,434, rather than that computed by the assessee at Rs. 2,35,22,830, t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....o source of these credits. In the view of the AO and of learned CIT(A), the purchases were bogus and, therefore, there is no question of any sale or export. The credit entries have, therefore, been taken to be bogus for the purposes of section 68. Above approach of the Revenue authorities cannot be accepted. In our considered opinion, it was necessary to examine nature of the entries and thereafter explanation of the assessee, if any, furnished relating to the credit entries. It appears to us that without examining above important aspect and without recording a proper finding thereon, provision of section 68 has not been properly applied. There is no gainsaying that credit in books can be treated as deemed income of the assessee and, therefore, it is necessary to concentrate on the credit, its nature and source. We are unable to say that inference of no sale or export cannot be drawn if the purchases are held to be bogus. But if assessee has also shown sales and sale consideration is claimed to have been received through the banking channels with names and addresses of parties who purchased goods and remitted the amount, it will be proper to hold credits as bogus without examining ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....l to handover Dasti summons to the assessee, if request is made by the assessee to call the witnesses for his examination. The complaint of the assessee relating to observation of violation of principle of natural justice should also be examined during the course of fresh hearing by the Revenue authorities. Other grounds are linked with the main addition discussed above. Therefore, orders on those grounds are also remanded to the AO for re-examination and for fresh considerations in accordance with law. For the aforesaid reasons, impugned orders are set aside and matter restored to the file of the AO. 24. A bare perusal of the above observations of the Tribunal shows that the directions handed down by the Tribunal are clearly very specific to the effect that in the remanded assessment proceedings, the AO was to restrict the examination to be conducted, to the credit entries of the assessee. If the AO found that these credit entries were genuine, no addition was to be made and the AO was to rest at that and proceed no further. His jurisdiction in the remand proceedings, in compliance of the directions of the Tribunal, was confined to this only, and to no more. The role of the AO ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....troy Motilal Chamaria (1967) 66 ITR 443 (SC), their Lordships held that : "Now, in the instant case, the matter was remanded to the ITO by the AAC to afford a proper opportunity to the assessee in regard to each item of addition made by him and thereafter to pass an order of assessment afresh. The order of remand, therefore, was limited to make a fresh enquiry into the question of additions made by the ITO in the original assessment order. It is true that there is a difference of opinion as reflected in the decisions of the various High Courts cited before us, on the question as to whether it is open to the ITO to consider the entire matter afresh, notwithstanding the terms of the order of remand. It is, however, not necessary in the instant case to enter into that controversy, because there is another aspect of the matter which arises in this case. In CIT v. Rai Bahadur Hardutroy Motilal Chamaria (1967) 66 ITR 443 (SC), the Supreme Court has held that while deciding an appeal from an order passed by the ITO, the AAC has no jurisdiction to assess a source of income which has not been assessed by the ITO and which is not disclosed either in the return filed by the assessee ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d in accordance with law, but limited, if there is any order of the appellate authority permitting the authorities concerned to proceed in the light of the directions made therein...."(Emphasis, italicized in print, supplied). 31. In the case at hand, indisputably, the matter was remanded by the Tribunal with specific directions, as noted above, laying down, in no uncertain terms, the scope of the action to be taken by the AO, pursuant to such remand. By invoking the provisions of section 69C of the Act in the order passed after remand, and making addition under the said section, whereas in the original assessment proceedings, addition had been made under section 68 of the Act, rather than under any other section, much less under section 69C, the AO has clearly transgressed the limits set by the order of remand. This, as held in Basudeo Prasad Agarwalla (supra), is unsustainable in the eye of law. 32. As in the aforementioned cases, in Mahtndra & Co. (supra), it has been held, inter alia, that the jurisdiction of the ITO as well as the IAC in respect of a matter where the assessment order has been set aside by the appellate authority is limited to the extent of the directions....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Vinayak Overseas and all the arguments made in this regard are being rejected." While observing thus, the learned CIT(A) has erred in failing to take into consideration the fact that the observations of the Tribunal were in respect of application of the provisions of section 68 of the Act. The entire discussions in para Nos. 11 to 13 of the Tribunal order, as reproduced hereinabove, are devoted to this aspect of the matter only, and to none else. It cannot be gainsaid that an order needs to be read in its entirety and bits and pieces thereof cannot be just picked up and read out of context, divorced from the other observations contained in the order. 36. On the basis of the above discussion, CO. Nos. 1 to 4 raised by the assessee are accepted. We hold that the AO has erred in passing the assessment order by going beyond the specific directions issued by the Tribunal while remanding the matter to him and the learned CIT(A) has erroneously upheld this action of the AO. 37. The last cross-objection raised by the assessee, i.e., CO. No. 5 states that the learned CIT(A) has erred in rejecting the contention of the assessee that the order passed by the AO is barred by limitatio....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... be said to be erroneous. 42. On an observation by the Bench, that the AO had taken two intrinsically mutually contradictory stands, on the one hand, ignoring the source of the purchases of Rs. 1,92,87,608, as explained by the assessee in its books of account and at the same time, making an allegation of unexplained expenditure by way of unaccounted purchases of Rs. 3,69,58,004, the learned Departmental Representative clarified that this was done by the AO probably for the reason that the purchases accounted for by the assessee in its books of account were not found to be genuine and the assessee would obviously have made purchases of Rs. 3,69,58,004 from other sources, which had not been accounted for by the assessee in its books of account. He further submitted that at best, credit of the expenditure of Rs. 1,92,87,608, as accounted for in the assessees books of account, could be given, but even if it were to be so done, an unaccounted expenditure of Rs. 1,76,70,396 would still remain, which would, again, be liable for addition under s. 69C of the Act. 43. As regards the evidence of such alleged unaccounted purchases, the learned Departmental Representative submitted that i....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s, for the assessment year 2001-02. He also took us through the audited balance sheet of M/s Mine-O-Gems, a copy whereof has been placed at assessees paper book 157 to 177. It was stated that as per this balance sheet, M/s Mine-O-Gems had made a sale of Rs. 51,71,48,930 during the year and had carried out import of Rs. 9,47,10,437. He also referred to assessees paper book 149 to 152, which are copies of invoices issued by M/s Mine-O-Gems and to assessees paper book 182, which is a copy of bank statement showing payment made by cheque to M/s Mine-O-Gems. He also referred to the copy of letter dated 5-11-2009 at assessees paper book 318, submitted by Mr. Sanjay Parekh, proprietor of Mine-O-Gems on his personal appearance before the AO, along with copy of the account of the assessee, copies of the invoices and copy of the audited balance sheet. 47. The learned counsel for the assessee also invited our attention to the order passed by the Tribunal, Jaipur Bench in the case of M/s Sambhav Gems Ltd., where also, an issue had come up regarding purchases made by M/s Sambhav Gems Ltd. from M/s Mine-O-Gems. On the basis of the abovesaid order, it was argued that having produced the partie....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....as much as he ignored the explained source of the purchases and without giving credit of such source of the expenditure incurred, assumed that the assessee had incurred expenditure which was unaccounted for; that the AO is completely silent about not only as to whom payment of such expenditure has been made, but also as to how it was paid; that the GP rate is the difference between the sale value and the purchase value; that in case the AO has any doubt on the GP rate earned by the assessee, he would be well within his rights to investigate not only the rate and the quantity of the sales, but also the rate and quantity of the purchases; that he would be well within his rights to examine and compare the same with the market rate in case of any variation which may raise a doubt about the value of the purchase or the value of the sales; that in case the AO has any such doubt about the purchase value or the sales value, the onus would be on him first to establish that the purchase rate or the sale rate is different from the market rate or value, and also to further establish that the assessee has actually paid money over and above that stated in the books of account in respect of purch....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....her, it is not the case of the AO that the stated rates of these items as per the purchase invoices are below the market rates; that as such, the AO was not justified in arbitrarily applying a GP rate of 14 per cent on the export sales; that in the absence of any finding that either the purchase rate, or the quantity stated was incorrect, the AO was not justified in estimating the purchases at a fantastic figure of Rs. 4,29,74,424, as against the actual value of such purchases at Rs. 1,92,87,608; and that the directors of the company are quite experienced in this trade and they have very good connections. In this regard, the learned counsel for the assessee invited our attention to assessees paper book 40 to 44, which is a copy of the audited P&L a/c of M/s Kishan Lal & Sons, of which, Mr. Ajay Gupta was the proprietor and M/s S.R. Jewels, of which, Mr. Rajeev Gupta was the proprietor from assessment year 1998-99 to assessment year 2001-02. He submitted that both of them are directors of the assessee company and so, the allegation of the AO that the company is new and that the GP rate is too high, is not sustainable. 51. Having heard the parties on this issue and having gone thr....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....the AO for assuming the GP rate of 14 per cent. On the other hand, there is a comparable case of Pakash Chand Vijay (supra), as upheld by the Tribunal in its order dt. 28-7-2006, in ITA No. 26/Jp/2005, where a GP rate of 55 per cent has been considered to be a reasonable GP rate. In the case of Prakash Chand Vijay (supra), as also in the cases of Jaipur Gem Exports Badhalias of Jaipur, the very same AO had, pertinently, himself accepted the gross profit of 50 per cent under similar circumstances. The learned CIT(A) has taken note of this fact in para 6.7 of the impugned order. 54. The GP rate is the difference between the sale value and the purchase value. In the present case, if the AO harboured any doubt concerning the GP rate earned by the assessee, it was well within his rights to investigate not only the rate and the quantity of the sales, but also the rate and quantity of the purchases, and to examine and compare the same with the market rate. In case he had any doubt about the purchase value or the sales value, it was for him to first establish that the purchase rate or the sale rate was different from the market rate or value, and further that the assessee had actually p....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ove that claimed. 57. Pertinently, it is not the case of the AO that there is any mismatch between the items in the invoices and the items exported by the assessee. The AO also does not say that the stated rates of these items, as per the purchase invoices, are lower than the market rates. And that being the case, the AO was, obviously, not justified in arbitrarily applying a GP rate of 14 per cent on the export sales. Further, in the absence of any finding that either the purchase rate, or the quantity stated was incorrect, there was nothing prompting the AO to estimate the purchases at Rs. 4,29,74,424 (sic-- Rs. 3,69,58,004) as against the value of such purchases declared by the assessee at Rs. 1,92,87,608. 58. Then, the copies of the audited P&L a/c of M/s Kishan Lal & Sons, of which Mr. Ajay Gupta was the proprietor and M/s S.R. Jewels, of which Mr. Rajeev Gupta was the proprietor from assessment year 1998-99 to assessment year 2001-02 (assessees paper book 40 to 44). Both, Ajay Gupta and Rajeev Gupta are directors of the assessee company and so, the observation of the AO that the assessee company was a new company and that the GP rate was too high, was wrong. 59. Then....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... of letter dated 5-11-2009 from Sanjay Parekh, proprietor of M/s Mine-O-Gems to the AO, which letter he submitted to the AO when he personally appeared before him, along with a copy of the account of the assessee, copies of the invoices issued by the concern and copy of the audited balance sheet of the concern. 62. Still further, the order passed by the Tribunal, Jaipur Bench in the case of M/s Sambhav Gems Ltd. shows that therein also, the matter regarding purchases made by the said M/s Sambhav Gems from M/s Mine-O-Gems was at issue. The assessee had produced the parties before the AO and they had unambiguously admitted the transaction. 63. Therefore, it can, in no manner, be disputed that the assessee had duly discharged its onus, particularly by duly bringing on record the facts regarding the import by these parties and sale to other different parties. 64. The observations of the learned CIT(A) on this issue are as under : "6.5 Now coming to the issue of addition made by the AO under s. 69C of the Act. The appellant has submitted that on merits no addition under section 69C is called for. Adverting to the provisions of section 69C, it has been contended that it....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....een 10 per cent to 15 per cent. However, in spite of specific query by the under-signed, no instances of comparable cases have been made available. On the other hand, the appellant has filed copies of assessment orders in the cases of Prakash Chand Vijay, Jaipur Gem Exports and Badhalias of Jaipur where gross profit of more than 50 per cent has been accepted by the AO himself/Tribunal. 6.8 As stated earlier, the AO, while completing the original assessment has made reference to some inquires made by the Investigation Wing, Jaipur in the cases of M/s Mine-O-Gems and M/s Vinayak Overseas. Therefore, an attempt was made to find out as to what compliance has been made by the appellant company in relation to the directions given by the Hon'ble Tribunal regarding making the aforesaid two parties available for examination by the AO. It has been pointed out by the learned counsel for the appellant that the proprietor of M/s Mine-O-Gems, Shri Sanjay Pareek has appeared twice before the AO and has confirmed the transactions entered into with the appellant company. It is also stated that the learned AO has recorded his statement in the course of assessment proceedings. As regards....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he allegation of the AO that the assessee was only issuing bogus bills without supplying of the goods is totally based on the statement of Shri Mohan Prakash Sharma who worked with the assessee for the two years only. Undisputedly, Shri Mohan Prakash Sharma was not employee or power of attorney holder at the time of giving his statement. He had left the services of the assessee much before the date of search. Under these circumstances, there is no reason to doubt the contention of the assessee that he was not having good relation with Shri Mohan Prakash Sharma and he had made false statement due to his business rivalry and jealousness with the assessee. It is also worth noting that statement of Shri Mohan Prakash Sharma was recorded behind the assessee and no opportunity of confrontation was afforded to the assessee which was required on the part of the AO to meet out the well established principle of natural justice. In his affidavit Shri Mohan Prakash Sharma has given the period he was working with the assessee i.e. 1-4-1997 to 30-11-1999. The search was however, conducted at the premises of Naman Gems (P) Ltd. and M/s Shruti Gems on 19-6-2003. Keeping all these facts in totality....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....irection to delete the addition made and sustained by the lower authorities on account of estimation of the alleged income earned on commission for supplying the bogus bills. The ground No. 2 of the appeals preferred by the assessee is thus decided in favour of the assessee by allowing the same." As regards purchases from Shri Sanjay Pareek, proprietor of Mine-O-Gems, it has been pointed by the learned counsel for the appellant that in the case of Scunbhav Gems Ltd., the Hon'ble Tribunal, Jaipur has recorded the following findings in identical circumstances as under : "Para 15. We fully agree with the submission of the learned Departmental Representative that for deciding an issue in a case totality of facts and circumstances are required to be gone into and strict rules of evidence do not apply to income-tax proceedings but at the same time for deciding an issue weighment of evidence produced by the parties cannot be ignored. Preponderance of probabilities works where there is no direct evidence to support a claim of either party. In the present case however the assessee had admittedly exported the goods involving several channels of Customs Departme....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rd we are of the view that the Department could not succeed in establishing beyond doubt that the claim of the assessee that the goods were purchased from the aforesaid five parties are false specially when there are several materials including sales-tax registration, PAN, bank statement etc., and the very conduction of search under s. 132 on the premises of some of them and recording of statements of some related persons to nurture the belief that the assessee had purchased the goods from the aforesaid parties only. There is nothing on record to indicate that from whom the assessee had purchased the goods other than the aforesaid five parties especially when huge amount is involved in purchasing the goods. We are thus of the view that the lower authorities were not justified in making and sustaining a huge addition of Rs. 6,45,03,018 on account of bogus purchase under s. 69C of the Act on the basis of some probabilities that assessee might not have purchased goods exported from the above five parties." 6.10 Thus, it may be seen that the allegation of the Department that Shri Gauri Shankar Pareek and Shri Sanjay Pareek were running a Hawala racket and issuing bogus bills o....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....any business activities, it had generated huge unaccounted income of Rs. 3,69,58,004 for making payment against purchases from the unknown parties. Therefore, in my view, the finding of the learned AO is based only on conjectures and surmises and is not sustainable in law. The Hon'ble Supreme Court, in the case of CIT v. Smt P.K. Noorjahan (1999) 237 ITR 570 (SC), has considered a somewhat identical fact situation and recorded the following finding : "According to the High Court, the Tribunal had not committed any error in taking into account the complete absence of resources of the assessee and the fact having regard to her age and the circumstances in which she was placed she could not be credited with having made any income of her own and in these circumstances the Tribunal was right in refusing to make an addition of the value of the investment to the income of the assessee. Shri Ranbir Chandra, learned counsel appearing for the Revenue, has urged that the Tribunal as well as the High Court were in error in their interpretation of s. 69 of the Act. The submission is that once the explanation offered by the assessee for the sources of the investmen....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....al bills without actual delivery of goods. In the case of Sambhav Gems Ltd. also the facts were that it has purchased precious and semi-precious stones from five parties of Jaipur including Shri G.S. Pareek and Shri Sanjay Pareek and in the assessment all the purchases from the aforesaid persons were held to be bogus. Though in the first appeal the action of the Department was upheld by the CIT(A), the Hon'ble Tribunal, Jaipur disapproved the action of the AO and recorded the following findings : "We even in the present case, do not deny the contention of the learned Departmental Representatives totality of the facts and circumstances of the case is very material to decide an issue arising there from and we have accordingly proceeded in the present case. The learned Departmental Representative has also placed reliance on the several decisions to support his contention that colourable devices have been adapted in the present case to avoid payment of due tax. We fully agree that the colourable devices cannot be allowed to avoid payment of due tax but the onus in that circumstance lies upon the Department to establish that the devices adopted by the assessee are colourabl....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....iness ranges between 10-15 per cent. Therefore, according to the learned counsel the observation of the AO is nothing but conjectures and surmises and has no evidentiary value in taxation matters. Further, it has been pointed out by him that in the case of Prakash Chand Vijay v. Dy. CIT, Circle-5, Jaipur, assessment year 2001-02, the Hon'ble Tribunal has held in identical facts and circumstances that the GP rate of 55 per cent was reasonable. On the basis of aforesaid conclusions, the Hon'ble Tribunal rejected the argument of the AO that the purchases made from the certain persons were not genuine and the same were under-stated in order to book higher profits so as to claim higher amount of deduction under section 80HHC. In this regard, the Hon'ble Tribunal has recorded the following findings : The only doubt expressed by the AO in the present case is that the transactions with the suppliers from whom the assessee claimed to have purchased the goods exported are not genuine, but the identity of the suppliers and their existence in the capacity of their being assessed to income-tax or in the other Government Department with whom they are registered for the purpo....