TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2021 (8) TMI 1141
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... bogus purchase besides making the trading addition of Rs. 30,79,250/- on account of low gross profit. Ld. CIT(A) has upheld the same to the extent of Rs. 808,400/- in place of Rs. 15,39,905/-. Entire addition of Rs. 15,39,905/- was deleted by the Hon'ble ITAT vide its order dated 24/04/2008. Thus Ld. AO and Ld. CIT(A) have erred by upholding the addition, ignoring the order of Hon'ble ITAT on this issue. 2. The ld. CIT(A) has erred by estimating the GP @ 13% as against the 12.14% declared by assessee, for making the addition of Rs. 8,08,400/- on account of alleged bogus purchases. Ld. CIT(A) has ignored the fact that a separate trading addition of Rs. 30,79,250/-, taking the GP rate of 15.42% has already been upheld by Hon'ble ITA....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ect of the issue of bogus purchases have been duly take care of by such an addition as held by the ld. CIT(A) and affirmed by the Tribunal in the first round. It was submitted that in the instant case, the factual matrix of the case is different from Vijay Proteins/ Sanjay Oil case which has been followed by the AO, therefore, the ratio laid down in the said decisions cannot be applied in the instant case. It was submitted that in the present proceedings, the AO has applied only part of the directions given by the Tribunal in the first round which suited the Revenue and has completely ignored the concluding part of the Tribunal's decision wherein it was held that by applying higher GP rate of 15.42% as against 12.41% is sufficient to take c....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....a 2.3 to 3.3.2 of the appellate order which reads as under:- "2.3 Ground No. 01 to 03 are being taken up together which are interrelated. I have perused the facts of the case, the assessment order and the submissions of the appellant. It is seen that assessee has obtained purchase bills of Rs. 61,59,622/- from two parties namely M/s Ambica Impex and M/s Abhinav Gems. In the original assessment proceedings u/s 143(3), dated 16.03.2006, Assessing Officer applied section 145(3) and made addition and also under section 69C of Rs. 61,59,622/- . Against the order of CIT(A), assessee as well as department filed an appeal before Honble ITAT. Hon'ble ITAT vide its order 24.04.2008 in ITA No. 399/JP/2007 confirmed the order of CIT(A) in ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 3.3.2 During the appellate proceedings the ld. AR of the assessee submitted trading results of past year which are as under. A.Y. Turnover Gross Profit G.P.% 2002-03 99334873 15317989 15.42 2003-04 93836783 11390381 12.14 Therefore, in view of the totality of the facts and component of unverifiable purchases, in may considered opinion it would be appropriate to estimate the GP at 13% which comes to Rs. 1,21,98,781/-. Consequently, the trading addition comes to Rs. 8,08,400/- ( 1,21,98,781/- 1,13,90,381) which is sustained. Accordingly, the balance addition of Rs. 7,31,505/- is deleted. These grounds of appeal are partly allowed." 5. We have heard the rival contentions and perused the ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s, there is no basis for fresh estimation of gross profit of 13% by the ld CIT(A) in the second round of litigation which is anyway lower than what has estimated in the first round and making a further addition over and above what has already been done by estimating G.P rate of 15.42% in the first round of litigation. We find that in the present proceedings, the AO has made an addition of Rs. 15,39,905/- towards unverified purchases to revised total income as computed after giving appeal effect u/s 143(3)/250 dated 16.02.2007 to order passed by the ld CIT(A) dated 8.01.2007 wherein he has estimated G.P rate of 15.42%. Therefore, the addition of Rs. 15,39,905/- is made over and above the G.P addition made in the first round of litigation whe....