TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2014 (2) TMI 1373
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e by the Assessing Officer to 5% of the total bogus purchases of Rs. 2,25,52,526/- made from M/s. Vishal Traders ?" (B) "Whether the Appellate Tribunal has substantially erred in holding that provisions of Section 40A (3) of the Act are not attracted to the cash purchases of Rs. 61,67,077/- claimed to have been made from other parties ?" (C) "Whether the Appellate Tribunal has substantially erred in holding that because the Assessing Officer of the supplier company treated the URD purchases as genuine, the consequential sales made by Amber Trading Company to the assessee is also genuine ?" (D) "Whether the Appellate Tribunal has substantially erred in upholding the decision of the CIT [A] in deleting the addition ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Revenue's appeal making following observations :- 'Revenue has challenged the judgment of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Ahmedabad ("Tribunal" for short) dated 17th April 2013 raising following questions for our consideration :- (A) "Whether the Appellate Tribunal has substantially erred in restricting the addition made by the Assessing Officer to 5% of the total bogus purchases of Rs. 61,67,077/- made from M/s. Vishal Traders ?" (B) "Whether the Appellate Tribunal has substantially erred in holding that provisions of Section 40A (3) of the Act are not attracted to the cash purchases of Rs. 61,67,077/- claimed to have been made from other parties ?"' 4. Issue pertains to addition of Rs. 61.67 l....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....aders and supplying the goods in the name of the said agency, though he himself was supplying the goods since he did not have registration for such purpose. Assessee also pointed out that the purchases were made through brokers and the assessee had no direct dealing with M/s. Vishal Traders. 7. CIT(A) granted partial relief to the assessee. He apparently was of the opinion that the purchases were not bogus. He, however, taxed 25% of the amount relying on the decision of this Court in case of Sanjay Oilcake Industries v. CIT [2009] 316 ITR 274 (Guj.). 8. Revenue as well as assessee both carried this issue in appeal before the Tribunal. Revenue urged that the entire purchases were bogus and therefore Assessing Officer's order adding....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... the learned counsel for the Revenue. 11. Here also, we do not find that the Tribunal has committed any error so as to give rise to any question of law. The Tribunal looking to the material noted above, retained portion of the above by giving cogent reasons. The decision of this Court in case of Sanjay Oilcake Industries (supra) was rendered in a slightly different fact situation. In the said case, the assessee had made purchases but the parties were not traceable. They had opened the bank accounts and immediately upon credit of the cheques, withdrawn the amount by bearer cheques. On such basis, the Tribunal had held that such parties were creation of the assessee itself for the purpose of banking purchases into books of account because ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....sing Officer disallowed the purchases on the ground that M/s. Amber Trading Company had made purchases from an unregistered dealer. He, in fact, doubted the purchases by M/s. Amer Trading Company itself. 14. Learned counsel for the assessee would however correctly point out that CIT [A] as well as the Tribunal both noted that in the case of the assessment of M/s. Amber Trading Company itself, such purchases were accepted and found genuine. That being the situation, the Tribunal in our opinion correctly did not accept the Revenue's appeal, making following observations :- "3.9 We have considered the rival submissions, perused the material on record and have gone through the orders of authorities below. We find that the disall....