AI OCR 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2023 (1) TMI 659
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rned CIT(A) is bad both in the eye of law and on facts. 2. On the facts and circumstances of the case, learned CIT(A) has erred both on facts and in law in confirming the order of the AO rejecting the contention of the assessee that reopening the assessment under Section 147 of the Act and consequent reassessment without complying with the statutory conditions and the procedure prescribed under the law are bad and liable to be quashed. 3. On the facts and circumstances of the case, learned CIT(A) has erred both on facts and in law in confirming the order of the AO rejecting the contention of the assessee that the reasons recorded for reopening the assessment does not meet the requirements under section 147 of the Act, bad ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ng the addition of Rs.1,49,056/- made by the AO on account of purchases made by the assessee treating the same as unexplained expenditure invoking the provision of section 69C of the Act. (ii) That the addition has been confirmed at an arbitrary rate of 10% of purchases made by the assessee without there being any basis for the same. (iii) That the abovesaid addition has been confirmed rejecting the detailed explanation and evidences brought on record by the assessee in this regard. (9) On the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned CIT(A) has erred, both on facts and in law in rejecting the contention of the assessee in ignoring the fact that the quantity purchased and sold being completely tallying, the....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... appeal filed by assessee against the order passed by the learned CIT(A) whereby he has upheld the action of the Assessing Officer in reopening the assessment under section 148 of the Act and on merit has confirmed of Rs 1,49,056/- at the rate of 10% of the total addition of Rs. 14,90,563/- made by the AO on account of purchases made by assessee from M/s Shree Bankey Bihari Trading Co, Shree Shyam Trading Co. & Vishnu Trading Co. 2. It is submitted that similar cases have also been heard before this Hon'ble Tribunal involving verbatim reasons, similar arguments and similar findings. These cases are also being relied upon, which are as under: Unique Metal Industries v. ITO in ITA No. 1372/Del/2015 dated 28.10.2015 ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... supported the orders of the authorities below. 4. I have heard the rival contentions, perused the material available on record and gone through the orders of the authorities below. I find that in the case of Babulal khandelwal Vs. ITO (ITA no. 196/Del/2021) identical grounds were raised and similar submissions were also made by the assessee. The coordinate Bench after considering the submissions, vide order dated 24.06.2022 has decided the issue by observing as under: "10. I have heard the rival contentions of the parties. I find merit into the contention of Ld. Counsel for the assessee that the identical issues were raised by the assessee in ITA No.l367/Del/2015 for AY 2006-07 and Division Bench of this Tribunal in para Nos. 1....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... of the view that since purchases are not bogus the addition on this account cannot be sustained. Even otherwise the addition of 20% on the facts and circumstances is apparently too high. The Id. CIT(A) having held that tax has to be levied on real income and the profit cannot be ascertained without deducting the cost of purchases from the sales as otherwise it amount to levy of tax on gross receipt, she ought to have applied' profit rate in this nature of trade. Estimating profit @ 20% by taking into consideration the or visions of section 40A(3) will not lead to determination of correct real income. Section 40A(3) is meant for a different purpose when the assessee has made purchases in cash. This provision cannot be applied in such cases.....