2020 (6) TMI 323

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....us and non-ferrous metals. On the basis of information received from DGIT (Investigation), Mumbai the assessment for assessment year 2011-12 was reopened on the ground that the assessee has obtained accommodation entries from declared hawala dealers. The Assessing Officer in reassessment proceedings found that the assessee has obtained accommodation entries to the tune of Rs. 1,45,80,351/- from various hawala operators. The Assessing Officer estimated GP at 12.5% on non-genuine purchases and thus, made addition of Rs. 18,22,544/-. Aggrieved against the assessment order dated 05/12/2016 passed under section 143(3) r.w.s 147 of the Income Tax act, 1961 (in short 'the Act'), the assessee filed appeal before the CIT(A). The first appellate auth....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....e vital documents such as delivery challans, transport receipts, octroi receipts, inward register, etc. to prove trail of goods. The ld. DR submitted that the CIT (A) was justified in upholding the addition. 5. We have heard the submissions made by ld. Departmental Representative and have examined the material available before us. The addition has been made in reassessment proceedings in respect of bogus purchases aggregating to Rs. 1,45,80,351/-. The Assessing Officer has estimated GP @ 12.5% i.e. Rs. 18,22,544/- on the alleged bogus purchases. The CIT (A) has confirmed the same. It is a well settled law that in case of bogus purchases only the profit embedded in non-genuine purchases should be brought to tax. In our considered opinion,....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....5/2020, under identical circumstances, after considering the provisions of Rule 34(5) of the ITAT Rules, 1963, judgements rendered By Hon'ble Apex Court and the Hon'ble Bombay High Court on the issue time limit for pronouncement of orders by the Tribunal and the circumstances leading to lockdown held:- 10. In the light of the above discussions, we are of the considered view that rather than taking a pedantic view of the rule requiring pronouncement of orders within 90 days, disregarding the important fact that the entire country was in lockdown, we should compute the period of 90 days by excluding at least the period during which the lockdown was in force. We must factor ground realities in mind while interpreting the time limit fo....