TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2024 (6) TMI 862
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nt order. 2. The learned CIT (A) has erred in confirming the disallowance @100% of Rs. 4,26,18,638/- being purchases by treating them as bogus purchase by merely relying on observation made by the learned assessing officer that he had received information from sales tax department and DGIT (Investigation) that the assessee has accepted bogus accommodation entry which is incorrect and ignoring the fact these are merely internal enquiries carried out by Sale Tax Authorities, in respect of third parties. 3. The learned CIT (A) has erred in confirming the disallowance without appreciating the fact that addition has been made merely on presumptions and without bringing any adverse material on record and conclusive findings to prove that purchases are non genuine. 4. The learned CIT (A) has erred in confirming the disallowance without appreciating the fact that sales reported by the appellant have not been suspected by the learned assessing officer. The A.O. has also not doubted the books of accounts which are audited which are placed on record with the assessing officer and hence purchases ought to have been treated as genuine. 5. The learned CIT (A) has erred in confirming th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ion/Mahavir Fabrication 72,37,080/- 3. Coral Trading Co 9,48,314/- 4. Roopam Impex 90,65,555/- 5. R J Corporation 2,43,70,692/- Total 4,26,18,638/- 4. On the basis of the above information, reassessment proceedings under Section 147 of the Act were initiated which culminated into Assessment Order, dated 16/03/2015, passed under section 143(3) read with section 147 of the Act whereby the income of the Appellant was assessed at INR 70,31,750/- after making disallowance of INR 63,92,796/- being profit element embedded in alleged bogus purchases of INR 4,26,18,638/- computed at the rate of 15%. 5. Being aggrieved, the Appellant carried the issue in appeal before CIT(A). Vide order, dated 16/10/2019, the CIT(A) dismissed the aforesaid appeal preferred by the Appellant and enhanced the addition from 15% to 100% of alleged bogus purchases. 6. Being aggrieved by the order passed by CIT(A), the Appellant has preferred the present appeal on the grounds reproduced in paragraph 2 above. 7. At the outset, the Learned Departmental Representative pointed out that the present appeal is barred by limitation by 1255 days and submitted that the same ought to be dismissed for th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....y bonafide mistake on the part of the Appellant and the tax consultant. Further, the Appellant was mentally disturbed as he was dealing with his own ill health, and the grief of demise of his father. He further submitted that in case the period during which the lockdown was imposed is excluded, the delay in filing the appeal would get reduced substantially. The Ld. Authorised Representative for the Appellant vehemently submitted that the Appellant was not able to file the appeal in time on account of bonafide reasons, which have been explained by the Appellant, and requested the delay in filing the appeal be condoned. Advancing arguments on merits, the Authorised Representative for the Appellant submitted the Appellant has a good case for not sustaining addition made at the rate of 100% of the purchases by placing reliance upon the decision of the Mumbai Bench of the Tribunal in Appellant's own case for the Assessment Years 2010-11 and 2011-12. 9. Per Contra, the Ld. Departmental Representative opposed Appellant's application seeking condonation of delay and submitted that the time for filing appeal expired prior to the imposition of lockdown on account of Covid-19 Pandemic and th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nt which we find to be sufficient and reasonable. In the case of Collector of Land Acquisition Vs. Mst. Katiji & others AIR 1987 1353 (SC), the Hon'ble Supreme Court has emphasized that substantial justice should prevail over technical considerations. The requirement that every day's delay must be explained does not mean that a pedantic approach should be adopted. The aforesaid doctrine must be applied in a rational common sense manner by adopting a pragmatic approach, and more so, in circumstances where a litigant does not stand to benefit by lodging the appeal late as is the case before us. Accordingly, keeping in view the facts and circumstances of present case, we condone the delay of 1255 days in filing the present appeal and proceed to decide the appeal on merits. 12. It is admitted position that, vide common order dated 23/03/2023, passed by the Tribunal in the case of the Appellant in appeals for Assessment Year 2010-11 (ITA No. 112/Mum/2023) and Assessment Year 2011-12 (ITA No. 113/Mum/2023) the Tribunal has restricted the amount of disallowance to 7.5% of the bogus purchases. The relevant extract of the aforesaid decision of the Tribunal read as under: "4. Shri Tejas S....