TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2021 (10) TMI 948
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....peal ITA No. 8017/Mum/2019, A.Y 2012-13 as a lead case and the facts narrated therein. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal: "1. The Ld. CIT(A) erred in conf irming the addition of 91,69,500/- being 12.5% of purchases Rs. 7,33,56,000/-." 2. The Ld. CIT(A) erred in conf irming the addition of 14,67,120/- for commission being 2% of purchases Rs. 7,33,56,000/-. 3. The Ld. CIT(A) erred in not adjudicating ground for reopening u/s 147 of the Act". 2. The Brief facts of the case are that the assessee company is engaged in the business of civil construction works. The assessee has filed the return of income for the A.Y 2012-13 on 27.09.2012 declaring a total income of Rs. 3,65,62,010/- and the retur....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....us purchase transaction and made 100% addition of Rs. 7,33,56,000/-. Further, the A.O. has relied on the statement in respect of the accommodation entries provided on commission. The A.O. has observed that the amount of commission has to be treated as unexplained expenditure u/s 69C of the Act and assessed the total income of Rs. 11,13,92,030/- and passed the order u/s 143(3) r.w.s 147 of the Act on 20.12.2018. 3. Aggrieved by the order, the assessee has filed an appeal before the CIT(A). The CIT(A) in the appellate proceedings considered the grounds of appeal, findings of the A.O in the scrutiny assessment, submissions of the assessee on the disputed issue. Finally the CIT(A) considered the judicial decisions of the Honble High Court an....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... proof with the A.O nor before the CIT(A). Whereas, in respect of addition of commission payments, the assessee must have incurred expenses for obtaining the bogus purchase transaction. On last disputed issue, with regard to validity of Assesseement, the Ld.DR submitted that the notice was issued within the time and the recording of reasons is based on the Information received from DCIT(central circle) Mumbai and the judicial decisions relied by the assessee are distinguishable on facts. 6. We heard the rival contentions and perused the material on record. Prima-facie the Ld.AR contentions are on three aspects, first we shall take-up issue were the Assessing Officer (A.O.) has made 100% addition of Bogus purchases and the CIT(A) has esti....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....t case are of the opinion that the gross profit rate disclosed in the financial statement is @3.25% and the assessee is in the Civil construction business and the margin of profit as mentioned by the Ld.AR is comparatively very much lower than 12.5% estimated by the CIT(A). Accordingly, to meet the ends of Justice, we restrict the profit percentage to 6% as against 12.5% and modify the order of the CIT(A). Further, we make it clear that this reduced percentage is applicable only to this Assesseement year. 8. In respect of addition of estimation of commission. We are of the opinion that the A.O. has only estimated the commission payment without any evidence and the addition was solely made on the basis of statement recorded. Accordingly, ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....LP filed by the tax payer and confirmed the decision of the Hon'ble High Court for addition of entire income is to be made on account of bogus purchases as against the ITAT's decision restricting it to 25% 11. At the time of hearing, the Ld.DR submitted that the CIT(A) has erred in restricting the addition to the extent of 12.5% irrespective of the fact that the assessee has entered into bogus purchase transactions and the CIT(A) has over looked the genuineness of purchases. Contra, the Ld.AR submitted that the assessee has filed the cross appeal. The Ld.DR could not controvert the findings of the CIT(A) with any cogent material or new information and relied on the order of the A.O. 12. We heard the rival submissions and perused the m....