TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2019 (8) TMI 542
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....l the appeals were heard together and are being decided by passing this consolidated order. 3. Rival contentions have been heard and record perused. Facts in brief are that the assessee is a firm engaged in the business of manufacturing and trading of Jewellery and Semi-Precious Stones. Original returns filed fort the assessment years under consideration was processed U/s 143(1) of the Act. Thereafter, the A.O. got information from the Investigation Wing to the effect that the assessee was one of the beneficiary who have obtained accommodation entries from the concerns operated by Shri Rajendra Jain Group, Shri Sanjay Choudhary Group and Shri Dharmichand Jain Group. The A.O. found the purchases from these concerns to be bogus, accordingly....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ate list of beneficiaries prepared during the course of search proceedings in the case of Shri Rajendra Kumar Jain group and the said list was made available with the office of the A.O. It was vehemently argued by Shri Rajiv Sogani, ld AR of the assessee that satisfaction for reopening was of Investigation Wing and not of the A.O. Reliance was placed on the various judicial pronouncements in support of the proposition that no reopening can be done only on the basis of information received from the Investigation Wing. The ld AR has further contended that there was no corroborative evidence with the A.O. to reopen the said case except the statement of Shri Rajendra Kumar Jain. For this purpose, reliance was placed on the decision of Coordina....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....n view of the details filed before the ld. CIT(A) regarding name and address of the supplier with confirmation and bank account, the assessee has discharged its onus and the only evidence against the assessee was the statement of third party. The said statement was not corroborated with any evidence even the A.O. did not make any independent enquiry by issuing notice U/s 131 or 133(6) of the Act. Our attention was also invited by the ld AR to the various visits/travelling of assessee to the Bombay and Surat in support of his contention that delivery of goods was taken by the assessee himself by travelling to the place of suppliers. As per the ld AR, in view of plethora of decisions whenever books of account of assessee are rejected, the onl....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... obtaining accommodation bills of purchases etc. from the entry providers without physically taking in the possession of the goods, made inquiry and then reopened the assessment after duly recording the reasons to believe that there was escapement of income. The AO on the basis of Investigation Report made his own enquiry and found that there was sufficient reason to believe that income of the assessee has escaped assessment in so far as assessee has taken accommodation entries from the number of identities controlled and managed by Rajendra Jain Group and others, entry operators at Bombay in whose case search was conducted by the Income Tax Department wherein it was admitted by him that he was in the business of providing accommodation en....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... find any merit in the contention of the ld.AR that reopening was not justified. So far as the merit of the addition is concerned, we found that the assessee was unable to prove the genuineness of the purchase, accordingly, the AO added 25% of such alleged purchases in assessee's income. By the impugned order, the ld. CIT(A) has deleted substantial addition in all the years. We found that the A.O. has not disputed sales made by the assessee and thus purchases must have been made for making the sales. Since the purchases could not be verified during the assessment proceeding, the AO came to conclusion that book results cannot be accepted. Accordingly, the AO has justifiably rejected the book results. However, the AO has not made the addi....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... of 21.24%, in Assessment Year 2010-11- gross profit rate of 18.97%, in Assessment Year 2011-12- gross profit rate of 17.37%, in Assessment Year 2012-13- gross profit rate of 15.45% which are higher than the average gross profit rate of 14.13%. Accordingly, as per our considered view, no addition in these Assessment Years is warranted. Accordingly, we delete the part addition so upheld by the ld. CIT(A) in Assessment Year 2009-10 to 2012-13. However, in Assessment Year 2013-14, the assessee had shown gross profit rate of 13.21%, in the Assessment Year 2014-15 gross profit rate 11.02% which are undoubtedly lower than the average gross profit rate of 14.13%. Accordingly, we direct the AO to compute the gross profit of 2013-14 and 2014-15 by ....