TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2012 (10) TMI 1211
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 2. The grounds raised in the assessee's appeal are as under: "1. The ld.ITO has erred in law and on the facts of the appellant's case in assessing the total income of the appellant at ₹ 17,50,328/- instead of ₹ 8,48,960/- returned by the appellant. 2. The ld.ITO has erred in law and on the facts of the appellant's case in making addition of ₹ 9,01,368/- on the erroneous plea that purchases made by the appellant from M/s.R.R.Patel Trading Corporation is bogus." 3. The learned counsel for the assessee submitted that the AO has made addition by holding the goods purchased from M/s.R.R.Patel Trading Corporation ("RRP" for short) as bogus and the entire purchase amount of goods was added as income in the hands of the ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....order in support of the case of the revenue. He submitted that the assessee could not prove genuineness of the purchases made from "RRP", and therefore the entire purchase amount from "RRP" was rightly added by the AO. He relied on the order of the AO. 5. We have considered rival submissions carefully and perused the orders of the AO and the CIT(A). We find that the CIT(A) has passed a well reasoned speaking order on the issue. The assessee has shown that the goods purchased from "RRP" were actually delivered to reputed concern like Videocon Narmada Glass, Saurashtra Cement Ltd., GNFC etc. and there was a complete quantitative tally between the goods shown to be purchased from "RRP" and correspondingly in turn sold by the assessee. The AO....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....red to other transactions of the assessee excluding the transaction with "RRP". We find that various decisions of the ITAT, Ahmedabad Bench cited by the learned counsel for the assessee were given in the light of facts of each case and could not taken as a binding precedent for all cases of bogus purchases. Considering the entirety of the factual matrix of the case and the amount of difference in purchase rate and also difference in GP rate, which was lower in transaction relating to "RRP", we are of the view that ends of the justice shall be met if 20% of the purchase amount booked in the name of "RRP" is added as assessee's income to cover the discrepancies in case of the assessee, as against addition of 25% of the purchase amount confirm....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nce on vehicles telephone expenses etc., stating that the AO has made the disallowance on presumptive basis ignoring the ratio laid down in the decision of the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in he case of Sayaji Iron & Engineering Co. Ltd., Vs. CIT,213 ITR 749 (Guj)." 10. We have heard parties. The CIT(A) has passed a well reasoned order on the issue of disallowance out of petrol expenses etc. and no reason has been cited before us to take a different view. Accordingly, the ground no.2 of the Revenue is dismissed. ITA No.2720/Ahd/2009 - Asstt.Year 2006-2007 (Assessee's appeal) 11. The ground no.1 of the assessee's appeal reads as under: "1. The ld.ITO has erred in law and on facts of the appellant's case in passing an order u/s.143(3) ....