Just a moment...

Top
Help
Upgrade to AI Tools

We've upgraded AI Tools on TaxTMI with two powerful modes:

1. Basic
Quick overview summary answering your query with referencesCategory-wise results to explore all relevant documents on TaxTMI

2. Advanced
• Includes everything in Basic
Detailed report covering:
     -   Overview Summary
     -   Governing Provisions [Acts, Notifications, Circulars]
     -   Relevant Case Laws
     -   Tariff / Classification / HSN
     -   Expert views from TaxTMI
     -   Practical Guidance with immediate steps and dispute strategy

• Also highlights how each document is relevant to your query, helping you quickly understand key insights without reading the full text.Help Us Improve - by giving the rating with each AI Result:

Explore AI Tools

Powered by Weblekha - Building Scalable Websites

×

By creating an account you can:

Logo TaxTMI
>
Call Us / Help / Feedback

Contact Us At :

E-mail: [email protected]

Call / WhatsApp at: +91 99117 96707

For more information, Check Contact Us

FAQs :

To know Frequently Asked Questions, Check FAQs

Most Asked Video Tutorials :

For more tutorials, Check Video Tutorials

Submit Feedback/Suggestion :

Email :
Please provide your email address so we can follow up on your feedback.
Category :
Description :
Min 15 characters0/2000
TMI Blog
Home / RSS

2008 (5) TMI 728

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... common order. 2. The only ground raised by the assessee is against the addition of ₹ 12,77,686/- sustained by the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) on account of bogus purchase made by the assessee while in ITA No.2801 and 2937/Ahd/2008 the Revenue's appeal, the only ground raised is against the relief of ₹ 29,81,266/- allowed by the learned CIT(A). 3. The facts of the case are that the assessee derives income from trading in iron, angles, plates etc. During the course of investigation, it was found by the Assessing Officer that the purchases claimed to have been made by the assessee from M/s.Girnar Sales Corporation and Shiv Metal Corporation were bogus. The total purchases made from the two parties during the....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....t the facts of the assessee's case are similar to Vijay Proteins and several other decisions of the ITAT wherein some percentage of the bogus purchases is disallowed. He also referred to the decision of the ITAT in the case of ITO Vs. Sun Steel, 92 TTJ (Ahd) 1126 wherein the only disallowance of ₹ 50,000/- out of bogus purchase was made. He also referred to the decision of ACIT Vs. Kulubi Steel, ITA No.1568/Ahd/2008 wherein 12.5% bogus purchase was disallowed. Accordingly, he submitted that a reasonable disallowance out of total purchase during the year under consideration should be made. 6. With regard to the addition for unexplained payment, it is submitted by the learned counsel that entire payment is recorded in the assessee&....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....t. Since the assessee has made the payment by cheque, which is duly debited in the assessee's bank account, the same cannot be said to be unexplained payment. Therefore, in our opinion, there was no justification for making the addition of ₹ 26,76,559/- as unexplained payment. 9. So far as the bogus purchase is concerned, we find that the Assessing Officer recorded the detailed finding so as to establish that the purchases claimed to have been made from Girnar Sales Corporation and Shiv Metal Corporation was bogus. The learned counsel for the assessee was unable to controvert the factual finding recorded by the AO in this regard. However, there is no dispute that the assessee is only a trader in the iron and steel and it has main....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ning bogus bills of some other parties, would do so for getting some benefit. But what would be the magnitude of the benefit would depend upon facts of each case. In the case of Vijay Proteins, ITAT held that such benefit to be 25% and therefore sustained the disallowance for bogus purchase at 25%. In the case of Sunsteel (supra), the ITAT deemed it fit to sustain the disallowance for a lumpsum amount of ₹ 50,000/-. However, we find that in the case of Shri Anubhai Shivlal (supra) the ITAT has considered both the decisions in the case of Vijay Proteins and Sunsteel (supra) and thereafter sustained the disallowance at 12.5%. Relevant findings of the ITAT in the case of Anubhai Shivalal reads are under: 3. At the time of hearing befor....