TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2020 (4) TMI 365
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....declaring total income of Rs. 6,74,62,087/-. The case was selected for scrutiny and notice issued u/s 143(2) of the I. T. Act on 28.0.2015. The reasons for the assessment is based on the information that Search & Seizure operations were conducted on 03.10.2013 by the Investigation wing, Mumbai, in the group cases of one Shri Bhanwarlal Jain and during the course of the operations, it was found that several name lending dummy directors, partners/ proprietors of various concerns belongs to the native place of Shri Bhanwarlal Jain & family through which accommodation entries are provided for bogus sales and bogus unsecured loans. It is also noticed that the concerns were literally controlled, operated and managed by Shri Bhanwarlal Jain and hi....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ider.?" 3) "Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, if the Ld CIT(A) has made a presumption that purchases have been made from unknown parties, the Ld. CIT(A) has not clarified how the payment was made and whether section 69 of the IT Act, 1961 will be applicable.?" 4) "Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT erred in not considering the order of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of N K Protein Ltd. dated 16.01.2017, which is on the similar issue of bogus purchases and when the apex court order was already the law of the land when the Ld. CIT(A) has pronounced its order on 16.08.2018.?" 5) The appellant prays that the order of the Ld.CIT(A) on the above grounds be....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s of the case. We noted that the Tribunal in assessee's own case in the preceding year i.e. AY 2012-13 in ITA No. 5939/Mum/2016 order dated 08.11.2017 has already confirmed the profit rate at the rate of 3% by observing in Para 7 as under: - "7. We have heard the ld. Departmental representative (for short 'D.R'), perused the orders of the lower authorities and the material available on record. We have given a thoughtful consideration to the facts of the case and are of the considered view that the CIT(A) had by way of a very well-reasoned order restricted the addition in the hands of the assessee to the extent of 3% of the aggregate value of the purchases which were claimed by the assessee to have been made from the aforementioned dummy c....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....eciated that now when the assessee had absolutely failed to lead any primary evidence to substantiate the genuineness and veracity of the purchases transactions under consideration, therefore, there remained no occasion for the A.O to have held the purchase transactions under consideration as genuine. We are further persuaded to be in agreement with the CIT(A) that now when the sales of the assessee had not been doubted and dislodged by the A.O, therefore, it could safely be gathered that the assessee had purchased the goods under consideration, though not from the aforementioned dummy concerns from whom bogus bills have been taken, but from certain unidentified parties operating in the open/grey market. We are further of the view that the ....