2023 (5) TMI 69

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... year 2011-12 on the grounds inter-alia that :- "1. In the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in confirming the action of Ld. Assessing Officer in completing the reassessment proceedings without providing any opportunity of cross examination of the witnesses relied upon by the Assessing Officer and thus violating the law laid down by Honorable Supreme Court in the case of Kishanchand Chellaram v. CIT (1980) 125 ITR 713 and Andaman Timber Industries v. Commissioner of Central Excise (Civil Appeal No. 4228 of 2006.) 2. In the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in upholding the action of Ld. Assessing Officer in completing the reassessment proceedings without follo....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....questionnaires were issued. As per information received from DGIT (Inv.), Mumbai the assessee has accepted entries in respect of bogus purchases from 7 entities as under: Sr. No. Name of the party Amount (Rs.) 1 D. K. STEEL & ENGG. CO 14,65,927/- 2 MAHAVEER METAL CORPORATION 43,10,601/- 3 SHREE GURURAJ METAL CORP 15,89,770/- 4 DINESH STEEL INDIA 37,38,871/- 5 KANAK METAL CORPORATION 55,21,960/- 6 VINAYAK SALES CORPORATION 70,79,820/- 7 RAJESHWARI EMTAL INDUSTRIES 1,14,46,706/- 8 METALEX TUBE INDUSTRIES 19,25,768/-   TOTAL 3,70,79,423/- 3. On failure of the assessee to produce aforesaid parties before the AO for verification and after declining the explanation filed by the assessee the AO proceeded to make....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....lso not in dispute that in the earlier years the Ld. CIT(A)/Revenue has itself estimated the profit element on such bogus purchases @ 6.5% of the alleged bogus purchases. 7. In the backdrop of the aforesaid undisputed facts the Ld. A.R. for the assessee contended that during the earlier years the Revenue has itself determined the profit element in bogus purchases @ 6.5% and brought on record order passed by the Ld. CIT(A) in assessee's own case for A.Y. 2009-10 available at page 15 to 25 of the paper book. 8. We have perused the order passed by the Ld. CIT(A) in the earlier years wherein profit percentage embedded in such purchases was restricted to 6.5% (i.e. 4% of VAT levied + 2.5% towards profit margin). 9. In A.Y. 2012-13 the Tribuna....