2020 (8) TMI 658

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... Mumbai (in short ACIT/ITO/ AO) for the A.Ys. 2011-12 & 2010-11 vide even date 23.03.2016 under section 143(3) r.w.s 147 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter 'the Act'). 2. The only issue in these appeals of assessee is against the order of CIT(A) confirming the addition made by AO off non-genuine and bogus purchases by applying profit rate at the rate of 12.5% of the bogus purchases. For this assessee has raised identically worded grounds in both the years i.e. 2010-11 & 2011-12 except the quantum. The facts and circumstances are exactly identical in both the years and hence, we will take the facts from AY 2010-11 and will decide the issue. The grounds raised in AY 2010-11 reads as under: - "2010-11 1. On the facts....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....Steel 8,45,861 7. Veer Industries 10,19,372 8. Jinkushal Metal Corporation 8,89,807 9. Leo Impex 9,859   Total 47,08,701 In AY 2011-12 S.No. Name of party Amount 1. Dev Deep Steel 37,08,555 2. Jay Vijay Tubes Pvt. Ltd. 13,05,274 3. Fortune Sales Corporation 11,20,007 4. Ratan Deep Tubes 25,23,316 5. Veer Industries 20,60,318 6. Chambal Steel & Alloys 18,97,705   Total 1,26,15,175 4. 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....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....with the remark 'Not known/ left'. The onus shifted on the appellant particularly in the background of finding of Sales Tax Department, Mumbai. The appellant filed certain details such as purchase invoices, bank statements etc. However, some of the specific details required to establish the genuineness of purchase such delivery challans, transport receipts, etc could not be submitted before the A.O. Nor the Principle Officer of these concerns were produced before the A.O. for examination. However, it is also a fact that the A.O. has not questioned the total sale component and if there is a sale there should be purchase. The appellant being a trading concern, had indulged in using such accommodation entry. As evident from catena of ....