TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2022 (11) TMI 657
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....al of the assessee was dismissed ex parte by the Tribunal by order dated 3.4.2019 for want of prosecution. However, liberty was given to the assessee to recall the same in case the assessee was able to demonstrate reasonable cause for non-prosecution. Accordingly, assessee filed Misc. Application being MA No.15/Ahd/2022 on 5.5.2022, seeking recall of the impugned order dated 3.4.2019. After considering the pleadings and submissions of the assessee, the Tribunal vide order dated 20.7.2022 recalled the order dated 3.4.2019, and listed the appeal of the assessee for de novo hearing. Accordingly, the matter case has come up before me for adjudication on merit. 3. The effective grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are as under: "....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....IT(A) holding at para 4.2 as under: "4.2. Ground No. 2 & 3 pertain to the addition of Rs.6,80,400/-made on account of bogus purchases of Diamond and alternative plea of assessing only profit embedded in such purchases. As already discussed the prop, of M/s. Mayank Impex had given a clear cut admission during the course of search that he had issued bills for accommodation entry only. The appellant has not furnished confirmation from the said party that M/s. Mayank Impex had actually sold Diamond to the appellant. Although the appellant has furnished copy of Invoices for purchase of Diamond but in the absence of confirmation, same cannot be accepted as concrete evidence. On perusal of Invoice dated 02.01.2007, it is noticed that the ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....addition of bogus purchases noting the fact that the impugned purchases had been admitted to be bogus by the parties from whom the purchases had been made and admitted to be only bills issued for accommodation entry purpose. He pointed out that the ld.CIT(A) further noted that the assessee was unable to prove the genuineness of the purchases, having filed only invoices on account of purchase of diamond and in the absence of confirmation of the said party, the ld.CIT(A) refused to accept this evidence. The ld.CIT(A), he pointed out, further noted that the assessee was unable to demonstrate that the purchases relating to these amounts was reflected in the sales of the assessee. He further noted that even quantitative analysis provided in the ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ng these diamonds for making ornaments, which were also filed, being a bill from Goverdhandas Narsinhiji, Baroda of Rs.2,66,600/- drawn on the assessee for making new ornaments with32.4Carat diamond studded. He also drew our attention to outward note of the assessee reflecting 32.4C uncut polished diamonds being sent to Goverdhandas Narsinhiji placed at PB Page No.44-45. He therefore stated that the assessee had in fact evidenced purchase of 32.4 Carats of uncut polished diamonds, to which this alleged bogus purchases pertained, and also the fact of their utilization for manufacturing ornaments. He thereafter pointed out that in identical facts and circumstances, in the case of alleged bogus purchases of diamonds, the ITAT had consistently ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e specific transaction with the assessee related to bogus purchase. The parties who had given accommodation had admitted to the said facts, and had also explained modus operandi in this regard, and the assessee was unable to establish otherwise. Therefore, in the light of the same, purchases were correctly categorised as bogus, and disallowance of the entire amount of purchases had been rightly confirmed by the ld.CIT(A). 11. I have heard both the parties. The purchases amounting to Rs.6,80,400/- have been held to be bogus based on investigation and inquiry by way of search action conducted on various persons including the proprietor of Mayank Impex, who admitted to providing bogus bills of diamond purchase and explained their modus oper....