TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2019 (3) TMI 2055
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....submitted that the jurisdiction u/s 263 as invoked by Ld. Pr. CIT on identical facts has been set aside by the Tribunal in the case of Rajal Enterprises Vs. Pr.CIT [ITA No. 2273/Mum/2018 dated 31/10/2018]. The copy of the order has been placed on record. Although Ld. Departmental Representative [DR] supported the impugned order, however, could not point out any distinguishing facts or features. 3. The facts on record reveal that the assessee was subjected to reassessment proceedings u/s 143(3) read with Section 147 for the impugned AY vide order dated 30/01/2016 wherein the assessee was saddled with estimated addition of 12.5% on account of certain alleged bogus purchases. While estimating the same, Ld. AO relied upon the decision of Hon'b....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ness of the purchases made by the assessee. After examining the material available on record the Assessing Officer, though, was of the view that the assessee has failed to prove the genuineness of purchases made, however, he found that not only the assessee has shown the purchases made in the books of account but has also recorded the corresponding sales effected. Thus, he proceeded to make addition of the profit element embedded in the bogus purchases by estimating the same at 10%. Thus, a reading of the assessment order makes it clear, the Assessing Officer not only has conducted due inquiry to ascertain the genuineness of the purchases made by the assessee but has made addition on account of bogus purchases in terms with the principle la....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....re found which conclusively proved that the assessee had not made any purchases. Thus, in the context of those facts 100% addition on account of bogus purchases was upheld. Whereas, in the case of the present assessee no such facts are involved. In any case of the matter, when the assessee was able to link the purchases with corresponding sales, the logical conclusion which one can arrived at is, the assessee might not have purchased goods from the declared source but from some other parties. In that event, only the profit element embedded in the bogus purchases can be considered for addition. Therefore, the decision of the Assessing Officer to restrict the addition to 10% of the bogus purchases is in tune with the consistent view of the tr....