AI Drafter 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2022 (11) TMI 1165
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....34,795/-. (ii) On the facts and circumstances of the case and in Law, the Ld. CIT(A) has failed to appreciate the fact that the entire purchase from alleged concerns were bogus and was only to suppress the profit of the beneficiaries which is substantiated by the statement on oath given by the entry provider. (iii) On the facts and circumstances of the case and in Law, the Ld. CIT(A), Surat ought to have upheld the order of the Assessing Officer. It is, therefore, prayed that the order of the Ld. CIT(A)-1, Surat may be set aside and that of the Assessing Officer's order may be restored." 3. Brief facts qua the issue are that during the course of assessment proceedings, it was noticed by Assessing Officer that assessee has made transactions with the entities of Gautam Jain Group. The Income Tax Department is in possession of information that a search and seizure action has been carried out by the Investigation Wing, Mumbai on the Gautam Jain Group which was indulged in providing of accommodation entries in the form of unsecured loans, bogus purchases/sales to the interest parties. The Assessing Officer examined the submissions of the assessee and observed follow....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....dictional ITAT (supra). In view of this, respectfully following jurisdictional ITAT, the disallowance is restricted to 5%. The AR has furnished orders of Hon'ble'ble ITAT Mumbai and Kolkata wherein, on identical circumstances & factual matrix involving the same operators the entire disallowance made by Ld. AO was deleted (Sanghvi Export International Ltd. ITA No. 3305, 3375/Mum/2017 dtd. 21.08.2018). However, since I have already taken a view of disallowing 5% of purchases and since it is confirmed by Hon'ble'ble jurisdictional ITAT, Surat Bench the decisions of ITAT Mumbai/ Kolkata are not followed. 7.5 In view of above discussion the disallowance is restricted to 5% of the impugned purchases as under: A.Y. Unverified purchases Disallowance confirmed 2013-14 Rs. 14,96, 35,632/- Rs.74,81,781/- 5. Aggrieved by the order of ld. CIT(A), the Revenue is in appeal before us. 6. None appeared on behalf of the assessee, despite issuance of notice of hearing on several occasions. This appeal has listed, in the past, for hearing on several times, however assessee did not appear, therefore we are of the view that assessee is not interested to prosecute....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....gh Court in various cases. To support his submissions, the ld.CIT-DR relied upon the decision; Pushpak Bullion (P) Ltd Vs DCIT [2017] 85 taxmann.com 84(Gujarat High Court), Peass Industrial Engineers (P) Ltd Vs DCIT [2016] 73 taxmann.com 185 (Gujarat High Court), ITO Vs Purushttom Dass Bangur [1997} 90 Taxman 541 (SC) and Mayank Diamond Private Limited (2014) (11) TMI 812 (Gujarat High Court). AGR Investment Vs Additional Commissioner 197 Taxman 177 (Delhi) and Chuharmal Vs CIT [1998] 38 Taxman 190 (SC). 14. On the other hand, the ld.AR of the assessee submits that he has challenged the validity of reopening as well as restricting the addition to the extent of 12.50% of the alleged bogus purchases. The ld.AR of the assessee submits during the assessment, the AO has not made any independent investigation. The AO reopened the case of the assessee on the basis of third party information without making any preliminary investigation. The AO received vague information about providing accommodation entry by Bhanwarlal Jain Group. No specific information about the accommodation entry obtained by assessee was received by AO. The....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Surat ITA 1504/Ahd/2017 and 1381 /Ahd/2017 9 Asian Paints Ltd. Vs. DCIT, [2008] 296 ITR 90 (Bombay) 10 PCIT, Surat 1 Vs. Tejua Rohit kumar Kapadia [2018] 94 taxmann.com 325 (SC) 11 The PCIT-17 vs. M/s Mohommad Haji Adam & Co. ITA NO. 1004 OF 2016(Bombay High Court) 12 Pankaj Kanwarlal Jain HUF Vs. ITO 2(3)(8) Surat ITA.No.269/SRT/2017 16. In the rejoinder submissions the ld. CIT-DR for the revenue submits that that rigour of the rules of evidence contained in the Evidence Act is not applicable before the tax authorities. It was submitted that the ratio of various case laws relied by the ld. AR for the assessee is not applicable on the facts of the present cases. The ratio of decision of Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in Mayank Diamond Private Limited (supra) is directly applicable on the facts of the present case. 17. We have considered the submissions of the parties and have gone through the order of the lower authorities. We have also deliberated on each and every case laws relied by both the parties. We have also examined the financial statement of all the assessee(s) consisting of computation of income and audit report. We have....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....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 operators of the country provided bogus entries to various beneficiaries, and assessee was one of such beneficiary, assessing officer was justified. Hence, the ground No. 1 in assessee's appeal is dismissed. 19. Ground No. 2 in assessee's appeal and the grounds of appeal raised by the revenue are interconnected, which relates to restricting the disallowance of bogus purchases to the extent of 12.5%. The AO made of 100% of purchases shown from the hawala dealers/ entry provider namely Bhanwarlal Jain. We find that the AO while making additions of 100%, of disputed purchases solely relied on the report of the investigation wing Mumbai. No independent investigation was carried by the AO. The AO has not disputed the sale of the assessee. The AO made no comment on the evidences furnished by the assessee. We further find that ld CIT(A), while considering the submissions of the assessee accepted the lapses on the part ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ing 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'ble Gujarat High Court in Mayank Diamond Private Limited (supra) is directly applicable on the facts of the present case. We find that in Mayank Diamonds the Hon'ble High Court restricted the additions to 5% of GP. We have seen that in Mayank Diamonds P Ltd (supra), the assessee had declared GP @ 1.03% on turnover of Rs. 1.86 Crore. The disputed transaction in the said case was Rs. 1.68 Crore. However, in the present case the assessee has declared the GP @ 0.78%. It is settled law that under Income-tax, the tax authorities are not entitled to tax the entire transaction, but only the income component of the disputed transaction, to prevent the possibility of revenue leakage. Therefore, considering overall facts and circumstances of the present case, we are of the view that disallowances @ 6% of impugned purchases / disputed purchases would be sufficient to meet the possibility of revenue lea....