TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2021 (12) TMI 51
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d multiple grounds of appeal as per the appeal memo, the crux of the grievance of the assessee is against the revisionary jurisdiction assumed by the Ld. Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax u/s.263 of the Act. 3. At the time of hearing, there was no appearance from assessee either personally or through his Authorized Representative. There was no adjournment petition also filed by the assessee. The case was heard after recording submissions of the Ld. DR. 4. The brief facts in this case are that the assessee is engaged in the business of construction. In this case, the assessment order u/s.143(3) r.w.s.147 of the Act was completed on 02.02.2016 assessing total income at Rs. 29,39,980/-. On perusal of the records, it was noticed by the Asses....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... addition on percentage basis on bogus/hawala purchases is not correct in law. 5.1 The Ld. Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax after considering the submissions of the assessee, assessment order and various judicial precedents referred vide Para 7 of his order was of the view that the Assessing Officer is required to re-examine the factual matrix and then decide whether addition of entire purchases or only profit element is warranted in this case and accordingly, the Ld. Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax set aside the matter to Assessing Officer for fresh determination of income after proper examination of facts and law. 6. The Ld. DR for the Revenue has submitted that since it is proved that there are bogus purchases then there is no questio....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....g, the profit element involved therein. The relevant extracts of the Hon'ble High Court's decision reads as follows: "2. The first question pertains to restricting the addition of Rs. 23.16 Lakhs to Rs. 2,21,600/- by the Tribunal. The Assessing Officer had made the said addition on the ground that the assessee's purchases were found to be bogus. The entire purchase amount was therefore, added to the assessee's income. The Tribunal, however, restricted to the said sum of Rs. 2,21,600/-. The Tribunal recorded that the Assessing Officer has not rejected either the purchases or the sales made out of the said purchases. The Tribunal therefore, was of the opinion that the addition should be restricted to 10% of the total purchases. The R....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ereafter consumed the same in the power project sites. In such a situation, it cannot be said that the entire amount of hawala purchase bills requires addition. The Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court in Pr.CIT Vs. Paramshakti Distributors Pvt. Ltd., vide its judgment dated 15.07.2019 in ITA No.413/2017, has sustained the addition @ 10% of the amount of purchases, being, the profit element involved therein. The relevant extracts of the Hon'ble High Court's decision reads as follows: "2. The first question pertains to restricting the addition of Rs. 23.16 Lakhs to Rs. 2,21,600/- by the Tribunal. The Assessing Officer had made the said addition on the ground that the assessee's purchases were found to be bogus. The entire purchase amou....