TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2020 (3) TMI 135
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... the following grounds of appeal before us: "(i) The Learned CIT(A) has erred on facts and in law in giving relief in respect of addition on account of bogus purchase after noting that appellant failed to negate the information based on enquiry conducted by DGIT(Inv.), Mumbai, triggered by information from the Sales Tax Department that they were hawala dealers and providing accommodation bills. (ii) The Learned CIT(A) has erred on facts and in law, in restricting the addition to 12.5% on account of bogus purchases as the parties from whom purchases were made were hawala dealers and absolute burden of proof is cast on the assessee and this burden of proof never shifts to the Department. (iii) The Learned CIT(A) has erred on fats and....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....regating to Rs. 42,95,62,364/- from the following 4 parties: Sr. No. Name of the Pur. Parties Amt. (in Rs.) 1. I.S.K. Trading Company Pvt. Ltd. Rs. 16,81,58,700/- 2. K.R. C. Trading Co. Pvt. Ltd. Rs. 20,75,00,990/- 3. S.B. Metal Corpn Rs. 2,03,20,320/- 4. Hanuman Steel Rs. 3,35,82,354/- Total Rs. 42,95,62,364/- In order to verify the genuineness and veracity of the aforesaid purchase transactions, the A.O directed the assessee to produce the aforementioned parties for necessary examination. However, the assessee failed to comply with the aforesaid direction of the A.O and did not produce either of the aforementioned parties before him. Also, the assessee failed to comply with the specific direction ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....der consideration not from the aforementioned hawala parties but from the open/grey market. On the basis of his aforesaid observations, the CIT(A) held a conviction that the addition in the case of the assessee was liable to be restricted only to the extent of the profit involved in making of such purchases by the assessee at a discounted value from the open/grey market. As such, the CIT(A) restricted the addition in the case of the assessee to the extent of 12.5% of the aggregate value of the amount purchase of Rs. 44,41,96,084/-. 5. The revenue being aggrieved with the order of the CIT(A) has carried the matter in appeal before us. 6. We find that the assessee despite having been put to notice had failed to appear before us. According....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
..... 4576/Mum/2017, for the year under consideration viz. A.Y. 2009-10 (copy placed on record). As observed by us hereinabove, the genesis of the controversy involved in the present appeal revolves around the scaling down of the disallowance of the entire value of the bogus purchases of Rs. 42,95,62,364/- made by the A.O to 12.5% of the aggregate value of the impugned purchases by the CIT(A). We find that both the assessee and the revenue being aggrieved with the order of the CIT(A) had carried the matter in appeal before the Tribunal. On the one hand, the assessee was aggrieved with the sustaining of the addition by the CIT(A) to the extent of 12.5% of the aggregate value of the impugned purchases, while for on the other hand the revenue was ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....er section 131 of the Act. The AO disallowed the purchases of Rs. 42,95,62,363/-. On appeal before the ld. CIT(A) restricted the disallowance @12.5% of the purchases disallowed by AO. Before us as well as ld CIT(A), the ld AR of the assessee contended that he has filed affidavit of the two supplier which was not considered by AO. The ld CIT(A) while considering the contention of ld AR observe that the affidavit were sworn on 27.02.2015 and the assessment order was also passed on the same day. The ld CIT(A) treated the copy of the affidavit as additional evidence and the same was not considered. Even before us the ld AR has not prayed for taking additional evidence on record. Though, the copy of the said affidavit is placed on record, howeve....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... the opinion that in order to fulfil the gap of revenue leakage, the disallowance of reasonable percentage of impugned purchases would meet the end of justice. The Hon'ble Bombay High Court in CIT v. Hariram Bhambhani [IT Appeal No. 313 of 2013, dated 04-2-2015] held that revenue is not entitled to bring the entire sales consideration to tax, but only the profit attributable on the total unrecorded sales consideration alone can be subject to income tax. We have noted that the ld CIT(A) after relying on various decisions restricted the disallowance at 12.5% of the tainted/ bogus purchase. Thus, we do not find any illegality or infirmity in the order passed by ld CIT(A), which we sustained." Apart from that, the miscellaneous applicatio....