TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2019 (3) TMI 1982
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....dentical except the assessment years and the amounts involved and therefore the submissions made by them while arguing one appeal would be equally applicable to the other appeals also and thus, all the three appeals can be heard together. In view of the aforesaid submissions of both the parties, I, for the sake of convenience, proceed to dispose of all the three appeals by a consolidated order but however, proceed with narrating the facts in ITA No.440/PUN/2017 for assessment year 2009-10. 3. The relevant facts as culled out from the material on record are as under :- Assessee is an individual stating to be engaged in the business of trading of computers, parts and accessories. Assessee electronically filed his return of income on 29.09.....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....G.P already declared by the appellant, as otherwise it amounts to double taxation of the same income. 2. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law Learned CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeal even though concurring with the appellants contention of decision of CIT vs. BHOLANATH POLY FAB PVT.LTD.(2012) 355 ITR 290 (GUJ) that it is the profit clement embedded in such URD purchases which is subject to tax and in support himself relied upon a number decisions of Tribunals and High courts whereby G.P addition of 5% to 25% embedded in such purchases was upheld considering the past G.P trend of the Assessee's in those cases, but failed to appreciate the crux of all the decisions that G.P addition in those cases was not o....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... genuine and the purchases have been made by the assessee to inflate the expenses/reduce the total income of the assessee. Assessee was asked to prove the genuineness of purchases by producing the original purchase bills, bank account extract and confirmation from the parties. To prove the genuineness, assessee furnished details regarding the purchases, proof of receipt of goods, proof of payment through bank, corresponding sales etc. Assessee however did not furnish the confirmations from the parties from whom the purchases were made. AO therefore concluded the purchases to be not fully verifiable and treated the purchases as "URD purchases". He thereafter relying on the decision of Jaipur Tribunal in the case of ITO Vs Deepak Dalela repor....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....009-10, Rs.5,3,248/- for A.Y. 2010-11 and Rs.1,89,360/- for A.Y. 2011-12 respectively. The Sales Tax Department had conducted surveys on the various entry providers and it came to light that the purchases amounting to Rs.33,93,506/-, Rs.78,75,560/- and RS.22,89,725/- for the A.Y. 2009-10, A.Y. 2010-11 and A.Y. 2011-12 respectively were purchases which were treated by the Sales Tax Department as in the nature of accommodation bills / hawala transactions. 5.3.1. The Appellant has challenged the act of the AO in reopening the case u/s 147 of the Act on the basis of information received from the Sales Tax Department. In the present case, there being a confirmation from the Hawala Operator against the hawala purchases, such reason, as held by....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... for arriving at such a conclusion. Under such circumstances, I don't find any infirmity in the order of the AO in making an addition assuming GP @ 10% on purchases for A.Y. 2009-10, 6.39% for A.Y. 2010-11 and 8.27% for A.Y. 2011-12. Accordingly, the Ground No.1 raised for all the three A.Ys by the appellant. Aggrieved by the order of Ld.CIT(A), assessee is now in appeal 6. Before me, Ld AR reiterated the submissions made before lower authorities and pointing to the reasons recorded by the AO for reopening the assessment and which are reproduced by the AO in the assessment order submitted that AO had initiated the reopening the assessment for the reason that assessee had made bogus purchases but however in the reassessment order pass....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nd perused the material on record. The issue raised in all the 3 appeals is with respect to addition made on account of purchases made in the re-assessment order framed u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 147 of the Act. The reasons recorded for reopening as reproduced by the AO in the assessment orders refers to the information received from sales tax department about hawala transactions of purchases made by the assessee amounting to Rs 33.93 lacs (rounded off) in A.Y 2009-10 from the 3 parties noted in the order and the aforesaid purchases being bogus/non genuine. However, finally the AO does not treats the purchases as non-genuine / bogus but makes addition by treating the purchases as "URD purchases". The addition is made only of the Gross profit on such....