2024 (2) TMI 890

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....in law and on the facts and circumstances of the case, was the Tribunal order not perverse, wherein it was content to dismiss the Appeal, by merely excerpting a major part of the order of the CIT(A) without giving reasons for doing so? II. Whether the Tribunal was right in upholding the orders of the CIT(A), that had held 8% of the purchases as non-genuine u/s 69C? III. Whether in law, when purchases are not satisfactorily explained and added back u/s 69C, could the addition be limited to a certain percentage as held by the CIT(A) and upheld by the Tribunal in their perfunctory order? 3. Assessee was a trader in chemicals. During the assessment of his returns filed for the Assessment Year 2011-12, the Assessing Officer ....

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 something that was doubted. Therefore, the CIT(A) came to the conclusion that when the A.O. himself has not doubted the quantity of purchases which has been entered in the books of accounts of appellant but only proceeds based on the information received from Sales Tax authorities that the purchases were made through bogus parties. The CIT(A) relying on Simit P. Sheth (supra) came to a conclusion that when the total sale is accepted by the A.O., then the entire purchases cannot be added to the income of assessee and what should be added is only what can be termed a fair profit margin. On facts the CIT(A) came to a conclusion that 8% of the purchases of Rs. 1,35,46,250/- would a be fair profit margin. This factual finding has been ac....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....288/- represented alleged purchases from bogus suppliers it was not incumbent on it to restrict the disallowance to only Rs. 73,23,322/-. Ms. Gokhale submitted that one of the appeal that was disposed by the Gujarat High Court had been filed by one N.K. Proteins Ltd. whose SLP against the decision of the Gujarat High Court was dismissed by an order dated 16th January 2017. 5. This court in PCIT v. Mohammad Haji Adam & Co. (2019) 103 taxmann.com 459 (Bom) has earlier distinguished N. K. Industries (supra) observing that the same cannot be applied without reference to the facts. 6. Also, the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in PCIT v. Jigisha Satishkumar Mehta (2023) 155 taxmann.com 279 (Guj) itself has distinguished N. K. Industries (supra) ....