AI Drafter 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2020 (4) TMI 853
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....of appeals except for variation in figures of disallowance u/s 69C / bogus purchases. Facts in all appeals are also common, therefore, with the consent of parties, all appeals were clubbed, heard and are decided by consolidated order. For appreciation of facts, the appeal for assessment year 2009-10 is treated as lead case. In this appeal, the assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal:- "I. REOPENING OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS U/S 147 BAD IN LAW 1. The assessment proceedings ought not to have been re-opened u/s 147 of the I. T. Act 1961. 2. The reopening u/s 147 is bad in law and the order is required to be quashed. II. ADDITION U/S 69C OF Rs. 15.10,042/- ON ACCOUNT OF NON GENUINE PURCHASES ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Trading Co Rs. 2,06,192 3 Sivmani Traders Pvt Ltd Rs. 52,9494 4 Chandranand Trading Pvt Ltd Rs. 43,205 5 Ambeshwar Trading Pvt Ltd Rs. 33,282 Total Rs. 5,35,179 3. In order to verify the transaction, the AO issued notices u/s 133(6) to all the parties. The notices were returned unanswered with the remark by postal authorities "not found". The assessee was also given opportunity to prove the genuineness of transaction. The AO recorded that no response was made by assessee. The assessee ultimately filed its reply dated 21-10-2013 and furnished party-wise details of purchases. The assessee was again served notice dated 23-12-2014 to provide the details of purchases, copy of bills and other docum....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he AO. The AO disregarded the submission of assessee. The AO relied upon the information of third party without considering the documentary evidences furnished by the assessee. The AO has not rejected the books of account nor disputed the sale of assessee. The sales of assessee were not possible without purchases. The AO made disallowance of entire aggregate of purchases shown from the tainted / alleged hawala parties. The Ld. CIT(A) confirmed the addition by taking view that the assessee not complied with his notices. The Ld.AR of the assessee submits that assessee has shown gross profit @8.7%, 8.72% and 12.64% for assessment years 2009-10, 2010-11 and 2011-12, respectively. The Ld.AR furnished the copy of following 12 decisions and would ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....(2017) 88 taxmann.com 645 5. Vijay Trading Co vs ITO 76 taxmann.com 366 (Guj) 6. CIT vs Simit P Sheth 38 taxmann.com 385 (Guj) 9. On the other hand, the Ld. DR for the revenue supported the orders of lower authorities. The Ld. DR submits that the assessee not provided sufficient documentary evidence to prove the genuineness of purchases. The assessee failed to substantiate that the material purchased by assessee was transported to the assessee as no receipt of transportation was furnished by assessee. The assessee has neither substantiated the genuineness of purchases before AO nor filed any substantive evidence before Ld. CIT(A). The Ld. CIT(A) passed the ex-parte order. The Ld. DR further submits that the sales-tax....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....filed beyond the prescribed period of limitation. On the contrary, the Ld.AR of the assessee submits that the impugned orders were received only on 16- 10-2018 and the appeals were filed within the period of limitation. Considering the fact that while deciding the cases on merit, the technical objection should not take precedence over the merit of the case; rather, we are of the view that when substantial justice and technical considerations are pitted against each other, substantial justice should prevail over the technical consideration. Therefore, considering this principle, we, instead of going into the controversy as to when the orders impugned were communicated, in absence of any evidence, we treat the submission of assessee in for....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... has shown that they have declared gross profit at 10.37% and if the addition at 100% of the alleged bogus purchases is sustained, gross profit would raise to 24.44% and ultimate net profit would raise to 20.61% which is impossible. The Ld.AR for the assessee has also relied on a number of decision as referred above including the recent decision of Honourable jurisdictional High Court in PCIT vs Rishabdev Technocable Ltd (supra) where the Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court in case of assessee, who was engaged in business of manufacturing and dealer of industrial power drilling instrument for AY 2010-11, while considering the question of law on disallowance of similar bogus purchases, upheld the addition on estimate basis by following the dec....