TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2024 (7) TMI 1490
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....estions of law arising out of the judgment and order dated 28.01.2022 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Surat (for short 'the Tribunal') in ITA No.284/SRT/2019 for the Assessment Year 2008-2009:- "(i) "Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. Tribunal was justified in estimating the addition in respect of bogus purchases @6% of such purchases as against disallowance made by the Assessing Officer @100% of such purchases amounting to Rs.3,40,03,788/- ignoring the fact that these purchases are sham transactions fabricated through bogus paper concerns of Pravin Kumar Jain Group companies which were engaged in providing accommodation entries?" (ii) "Whether on the facts and in the....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.....2019, partly allowed the appeal of the assessee confirming the addition @ 5% of the unexplained purchases of Rs. 3,40,03,788/-. 3.5. Feeling aggrieved, the Revenue preferred an appeal before the Tribunal. The Tribunal, by the impugned order dated 28.01.2022, partly allowed the appeal of the Revenue and restricted the disallowance at 6% of the amount of the unexplained purchases. 4. At the outset, learned advocate Mr. Rudram Trivedi for the appellant-Revenue submitted that the Tribunal has relied upon the judgment of the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court (Coram: Hon'ble Mr.Justice N.V.Anjaria and Hon'ble Mr.Justice Niral R. Mehta) in case of Principal Commissioner of Income Tax Versus Pankaj K. Choudhary rendered in Tax Appeal No.617 of....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ck register, copy of ITR were already filed. The Assessing Officer was, however, of the view that transactions were bogus and merely that it routed through the banking channel, was not sufficient to conclude that they were the genuine transactions. The contention of the assessee that he had not dealt with the Bhanvarlal Jain group was also negatived. The appellate Commissioner took the view that disallowance was required to be sustained at 12.5% of the purchase. The Assessing Officer was directed accordingly to workout disallowance. In para 10.6, the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), recorded thus, "As held above, it is clear that the appellants have made purchases from elsewhere, but have obtained bills from the impug....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
..... The appellate Tribunal endorsed to the view taken by the appellate Commissioner. It was observed that Assessing Officer failed to consider the evidence furnished by the assessee. 5.3 Considering the facts and relevant aspect, the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal partially allowed the appeal of the assessee to further reduce the disallowance at 6%. In so concluding, the Tribunal observed in paragraph No.21 as under, ".......during the financial year under consideration the assessee has shown total turnover of Rs. 66,09,62,458/-. The assessee has shown Gross Profit @ 78% and net Profit @ 0.02% (page 11 of paper Book). The assessee while filing the return of income has declared taxable income of Rs. 1,81,840/- only. We are conscious....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....of appeal raised by revenue are dismissed." 6. The view taken and the conclusion arrived at by the appellant Tribunal are based on material before it and after analysing the facts and figure available before it. When the Tribunal has thought it fit to reduce the disallowance at 6% from 12.5%, the Tribunal had before it the facts which were duly analysed by it. No interference is called for in the said conclusion and findings of the Tribunal in the present appeal by this court. 6.1 The another weighing aspect is that the Tax Appeal No. 674 of 2022 in Principal Commissioner of Income Tax 1, Surat vs. M/s. Surya Impex which came to be decided by the coordinate Bench on 16.1.2023 dealt with the very issue of accommodation entries provided....