TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2022 (6) TMI 1004
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....td which is presently assessed to Income Tax under the jurisdiction of income tax officer, Ward- 1(1)(4),Mumbai on holding PAN-AADCM 2991 E. 2. That, the 1st appeal order related to AY 2008-09 of M/s Manav Trading (India) Pvt. Ltd. dated 13/09/2017 is stated to have been served on 11/10/2017 and 2nd appeal before Hon'ble ITAT ought to have been filed on/or before 10/12/2017. However, the said 2nd appeal could only be filed on 27/02/2019 which is late by 444 days. 3. That, the delay in filing of the 2nd appeal had occurred under the bona fide reasons and compelling circumstances beyond my control stated as under: a) The 1st appeal order was not served to me due to closure of business and office of my company situated at 12, Shakti Chambers, Raghunathpura, main Road, Surat. I had shifted my office permanently at Mumbai. The change in my office address from Surat to Mumbai was intimated and incorporated on record of Registrar of Companies. Also, both directors had shifted their place of residence permanently at Mumbai. In 1st appeal memo (Form 35), the address for sending the notice of hearing was disclosed of Mr. Pawan Jagetia, Chartered Accountant situated at 508, 21st C....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rd. The power to condone the delay is a discretionary one. This discretion to condone delay, is subject to the assessee forth coming with a 'sufficient cause'. The 'sufficient cause' must be bona fide and cogent and not flimsy. It is settled law that the court and quasi judicial bodies are empowered to condone the delay, if the litigant satisfies the court that there were sufficient reasons for availing the remedy after the expiry of limitation. We note that reasons given in the affidavit for delay are convincing and these reasons would constitute reasonable and sufficient cause for delay in filing the appeal. We note that delay in filing the appeal before Tribunal is not intentional and there is no gross negligence on the part of the assessee. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Collector of Land Acquisition vs Mst. Katiji and others , reported in 167 ITR 471, (1988 SC 897) (7) has observed as follows: "4. When substantial justice and technical considerations are pitted against each other, cause of substantial justice deserves to be preferred for the other side cannot claim to have vested right in injustice being done because of a non- deliberate delay." 6.....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... sheet filed on record;" 8. At the outset, Ld. Counsel for the assessee, informs the Bench that assessee does not wish to press ground nos.1 and 2, therefore we dismiss the ground nos.1 and 2, as not pressed. 9. Now, we shall adjudicate the ground nos. 3 to 5 raised by the assessee on merits. Succinct facts are that on the basis of the information received from DIT(Investigation), Ahmedabad, the assessing officer (AO) found that the assessee has received accommodation entries in the nature of bogus purchases of Rs.50,00,082/- from M/s. Casper Enterprises Pvt. Ltd. This company is controlled and managed by Shri Praveen Kumar Jain. The case reopened u/s 147 of the Act and the notice u/s 148 of the Act was issued. The assessee did not file any return of income in response to the notice u/s 148 within the statutory period of 30 days. The AO issued notice u/s 133(6) to the seller company (M/s Ostwal Trading (I) Pvt. Ltd.) on 10.09.2015 but notice was returned back with postal remarks "not available". Further, the AO conducted enquiry and found that the said seller company is only a paper company and is not traceable at the given address. The AO, during the assessment stage, provided s....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ra) while considering the validity of similar notice of reopening, which was also issued on the basis of information of investigation wing that they have searched a person who is engaged in providing accommodation entries, held that where after scrutiny assessment the assessing officer received information from the investigation wing that well known entry operators of the country provided bogus entries to various beneficiaries, and assessee was one of such beneficiary, assessing officer was justified in re-opening assessment. Further similar view was taken by Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court in Pushpak Bullion (P) Ltd Vs DCIT (supra). Therefore, respectfully following the order of Hon'ble High Court, we find that the assessing officer validly assumed the jurisdiction for making re-opening under section 147 on the basis of information of investigation wing Mumbai. So far as other submissions of the ld AR for the assessee that there is no live link of the reasons recorded, we find that the Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court in Peass Industrial Engineers (P) Ltd clearly held that when assessing officer received information from the investigation wing that two well known entry operator....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ain 5% of Gross Profit Rate, considering the fact that where Gross Profit shown by those assessee's are more than 5%. However, in the present case, the assessee has merely shown Gross Profit Rate only at 0.78% of turnover, accordingly, the ld.CIT(A) was of the view that disallowance of 12.5% of impugned purchases/bogus purchases would be reasonable to meet the end of justice. 21. We have seen that during the financial year under consideration the assessee has shown total turnover of Rs. 66,09,62,458/-. The assessee has shown Gross Profit @ .78% and net Profit @ .02% (page 11 of paper Book). The assessee while filing the return of income has declared taxable income of Rs.1,81,840/- only. We are conscious of the facts that dispute before us is only with regard of the disputed purchases of Rs, 4.34 Crore, which was shown to have purchased from the entity managed by Bhanwarlal Jain Group. During the search action on Bhanwarlal Jain no stock of goods/ material was found to the investigation party. Bhanwarlal Jain while filing return of income has offered commission income (entry provider). Before us, the ld CIT-DR for the revenue vehemently submitted that the ratio of decision of Hon'....