TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2018 (8) TMI 2157
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....come tax (Appeals) - 30, Mumbai on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in Law erred in confirming the action of the Assessing Officer of reopening the assessment u/s. 147 of the Act and issuing notice u/s. 148 of the Act. 2) The Learned Commissioner of Income tax (Appeals) - 30, Mumbai on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in Law erred in confirming estimated additions of Rs. 13,58,899 i.e @ 12.5% of total alleged non-genuine purchase of Rs. 1,08,71,191/- made by the Assessing Officer. 2. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee is a Trader in Ferrous and Non- Ferrous Metals, filed its return of income for Assessment Year 2009-10 on 24.09.2009 declaring total income of Rs. 3,05,780/-. Th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
..... The ld. AR of the assessee submits that all purchases of the assessee are genuine one. The assessee has proved by sufficient evidence, the genuinity of purchases. The ld. AR of the assessee further submits that in assessee's brother case on similar facts and on similar grounds of appeal, the Tribunal has sustained the addition of impugned/bogus purchases @ 6.5% of the aggregate of similar purchases. 5. On the other hand, the ld. DR for the revenue supported the order of authorities below. The DR further submits that the Sales Tax Department, Govt. of Maharashtra and the Investigation Wing of Income tax Department made full-fledged enquiry with regard to hawala dealers who were indulging in providing accommodation enteritis without delive....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... about the contention as well as evidences furnished by assessee. The Assessing Officer has not examined the Gross Profit declared by assessee in earlier year or in subsequent Assessment Year. The ld. CIT (A) sustained the addition/disallowance of non-genuine purchases by following the decision of Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in case of CIT vs. Simit P. Sheth 356 ITR 451 (Guj.) on his observation, the only profit element embedded in such type of purchases. 7. We have noted that before the ld. CIT (A), the assessee has furnished the Gross Profit margin for earlier and subsequent Assessment Year. The ld. CIT (A) has not given any finding on such submission of the assessee. We have noted that in assessee's brothers case, the co-ordinate bench o....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ch were claimed by the assessee to have been made from the aforementioned 13 parties. We are of the considered view that the adoption of the rate of 6.5% by the CIT (A) is well supported on the basis of the reasoning adopted by the Hon'ble High Court of Gujarat in the case of CIT Vs. Simit P. Sheth (2013) 38 Taxmann.com 385 (Guj). We are of the considered view that the CIT (A) on the basis of his aforesaid reasoning for restricting the disallowance/ addition to 6.5% of the total non-genuine purchases, had also taken due cognizance of the fact that in the case of the assessee for the immediate succeeding years, viz. A.Y. 2010-11 and A.Y. 2011-12 the addition was restricted by the first appellate authority to 6%. We are of the considered ....