2017 (8) TMI 1599

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....e Act'). 2. The first common issue in these two appeals of assessee is against the order of CIT(A) confirming the reopening of assessment. For this assessee has raised identical grounds in both the years. Hence, we will take the facts from AY 2009-10 and grounds of appeal also and decide the issue. The grounds raised regarding re-opening reads as under: - "A) BINDING PRECEDENT I. 'The learned CIT(A) has erred in law & in facts in not following binding precedents in the case of CIT v. Nikunj Eiximp Enterprises (P) Ltd. (2013) 216 Taxman 171 (Mag.) & Babulal C. Borana (282 ITR 251 (Born) (HC) & Bombay tribunal judgments quoted in written submission before CIT(A)." 3. We have heard the rival contentions and gone through the facts and....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....14,03,447 For AY 10-11 "Sl No. Name of party Amount 1. Bhavikh Steels Pvt. Ltd 24,55,621   Umiya Sales Agency Pvt. Ltd 12,38,016/-   Bhagwati Trading Co. 26,03,692/-   Shreeji Traders 36,89,674/-   Mumbai Metal Corporation 24,21,093/- Total 1,24,08,096/- 6. The AO issued noticed under section 133(6) to the parties which returned back with the remark as "left" and assessee failed to produce these parties. During the course of assessment proceedings and during appellate proceedings, the assessee submitted all the documentary evidences such as inward register, stock register, payment received against such sales, receipt of material purchases, account payee cheque. It was also argued that the AO has not....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....and transport of the materials from the 'alleged purchase parties. In such a situation, it is logical to conclude that the assessee has taken bogus bills and the inflation of purchase and the extent of inflation has to be estimated based on facts of this case. 5.9 In view of above it is held that the appellant has failed to establish that the goods were purchased from the parties which had issued the bills. Natural inference is that either it was purchased from different source or the same were out of suppressed stock of past period because sales are not in dispute. Since the said source is not known, the extent of inflation of purchase cannot be ascertained. It will be 100% if the sale is made out of own suppressed stock of past peri....