TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2020 (10) TMI 192
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Ld. CIT(A)-28, New Delhi in relation to assessment year 2009-10. Since common issues involved in the department appeals, hence, the same were heard together and are being disposed of by this common order for the sake of convenience, by dealing with ITA No. 3519/Del/2019. 2. The grounds raised in Revenue's appeal no. 3519/Del/2017 read as under:- 1. That the CIT(A) erred in law and on facts of the case in deleting the addition of Rs. 7,05,00,000/- made by the AO on account of payments towards bogus purchase. 2(a) The order of the CIT(A) is erroneous and not tenable in law and on facts. (b) The appellant craves leave to add, alter or amend any / all of the grounds of appeal before or during the course of the hearing of the appeal. 3. ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....f the view that Ld. CIT(A) has deleted the addition in dispute by respectfully following the decision of the ITAT in the case of Vijay Kumar Goel which has been later upheld by the Hon'ble Allahabad High Court. We find that Ld. CIT(A) has reproduced the finding of the ITAT in the case of Vijay Kumar Goel Proprietor Mankey Lal Jagdish Prasad in ITA No. 670/Del/2013 AY 2009-10 vide order dated 17.06.2015 in para no. 4.2 at page 6 to 9 of his impugned order as well as Hon'ble Allahabad High Court order dated 18.11.2015 in ITA No. 289 of 2015 dismissing the revenue appeal vie para no. 4.3 at page no. 9 & 10 of his impugned order. For the sake of convenience, the findings of the Ld. CIT(A) passed in his impugned order dated 27.03.2017 in Appeal ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d that the AO had not pointed out any defects in the sales records and in the books of accounts. The Ld. CIT(A) categorically stated that the AO has not commented upon the submission of the assessee on the total sales shown by him in the books of accounts. He also mentioned that withdrawals made by Sh. Surendra Kumar Sharma from his different bank accounts did not match with any of the deposits in the bank account of the assessee and there were mostly cheque clearing entries and no cash deposits. The Ld. CIT(A) mentioned that Sh. Surendera Kumar Sharma in his statement recorded under oath by Income Tax Officer, Ward- 2(3), which was attached by the AO with the remand report, has nowhere stated that he issued accommodation bills to the parti....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e local taxes etc. and at best could be treated as unverifiable purchases inviting some better margin of profit. The Ld. CIT(A) held that the AO was not justified to make the addition of the entire cost of material to the income of the assessee that would result into unimaginable profit in the business particularly when the sales had been accepted purchases also have to be accepted. The Ld. CIT(A) observed that the AO had not disturbed the trading results as disclosed by the assessee and the payment for the purchase of material had been made through banking channel, similarly, the payment for the sale of the material had been received through proper banking channel and there was no material on record that the assessee paid his money in cash....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....see and categorically stated that the purchases as well as the sales were through banking channel and there was no cash deposit in the bank account of the assessee. In the present case, the AO has not pointed out any defects in the books of account therefore, the Ld. CIT(A) was fully justified in deleting the addition made by the AO on account of alleged bogus purchases particularly when the GP rate declared by the assessee was progressive and was accepted by the AO. As regards to the addition sustained by the Ld. CIT(A) by applying the net profit rate of 5% of the alleged unverifiable purchase. We are of the view that when the Ld. CIT(A) himself accepted the trading results of the assessee and also held that the payment for purchases of ma....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....in ITA No. 670/Del/2013 and Hon'ble Allahabad High Court in ITA No. 289 Sh. Ramesh Chand Goel Appeal No.: 56/16-17/28/16-17, A.Y.- 2009-10 of 2015 in case of Sh. Vijay Kumar Goel Proprietor Mankey Lai Jagdish Prasad. Further since all the material facts are found to be same, hence the issue under consideration is held to be is squarely covered by the decision of the Jurisdictional ITAT in the case of Sh. Vijay Kumar Goel and the finding of the Hon'ble Tribunal has been duly confirmed by Hon'ble Allahabad High Court . Since, the issue in this case is a covered issue, therefore respectively following the findings in the above decisions, it is held that no material evidence has brought out by the Assessing Officer to indicate that M/s Rddhi Si....