TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2024 (6) TMI 26
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ar (AY) 2009-10. 2. The grounds of appeal raised by the Revenue are as under: "1. On the On the facts and circumstances of the also and in Iaw, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in restricting the addition made by the AO from Rs. 4,32,12,386/- to Rs. 1,03,70,972/- being 6% of the bogus purchase without appreciating the facts that the assessee had failed to prove the genuineness of the transaction made with the concerns which was identified as bogus entities completely run by Shri Bhanwerlal Jain. 2. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, Ld. CIT(A) has erred in restricting the addition from 25% to 6% made by the AO on account of bogus purchase without appreciating the findings that Shri Bhanwerlal Jain is engaged....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d to make addition at the rate of 5% of the total turnover. 6. On the basis of the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) ought to have upheld the order of the Assessing Officer. 7. It is, therefore, prayed that the order of the Ld. CIT(A) may kindly be set aside and that of the Assessing Officer be restored." 3. The facts of the case in brief are that the assessee is engaged in the business of import, export, trading and manufacturing and rough polished diamonds under the name of 'M/s Laxmi Diamonds'. The assessee has filed his return of income for AY. 2009-10 on 01.08.2009, declaring total income of Rs. 2,17,400/-. The assessee's case was reopened u/s 147 of the Act. A notice u/s 148 of the Act....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... register and bank statements were furnished to claim that the transactions are genuine. The reply of the assessee was not accepted by the Assessing Officer. The Assessing Officer has completed assessment u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 147 of the Act on 27.10.2016 by making addition of Rs. 4,32,12,386/- being 25% of the total purchase of Rs. 17,28,49,544/- u/s 69C of the Act. 4. Aggrieved by the addition, the assessee filed appeal before Ld. CIT(A). The Ld. CIT(A) observed that the entire addition has been made solely on the statement of Shri Bhanwarlal Jain group. The Ld. CIT(A) also observed that several scrutiny assessments have already completed and additions were made on account of bogus purchases. However, the Ld. CIT(A) has restricted the addi....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....vs. JCIT, (2006) 206 CTR (SC) 585, 288 ITR 10 (SC), (iii) PCIT vs. Mrs Premlata Tekriwal, 143 taxamann.com 173 (Cal. - HC). 6. On the other hand, Learned Authorized Representative (Ld. AR) of the assessee has strongly relied from the order of the Ld. CIT(A). He argued that the AO disallowed 25% of the bogus purchase, which was subsequently reduced to 6% by the Ld. CIT(A) following the order of the ITAT, Surat. 7. We have heard both the parties and perused the material available on record. We find that issue under consideration is covered by the decision of the Co-ordinate Bench, ITAT, Surat in the case of Pankaj K. Chaudhary (supra) wherein the Tribunal has sustained the addition @ 6% of bogus purchases. 14 appeals were decided by ITA....