2025 (4) TMI 335

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....i for the Appellant and learned advocate Mr. B. S. Soparkar for the Respondent. 2. Tax Appeal No. 723 of 2024 is for the Assessment Year 2012- 13 whereas, Tax Appeal No.789 of 2024 is for the Assessment Year 2009-10. For the sake of convenience, Tax Appeal No. 723 of 2024 is being taken up as the lead matter. 3. The brief facts of the case are as follows:- 3.1 The assessee is a firm, inter-alia, engaged in the business of import, processing, trading and export of diamond. The assessee had filed its return of income for the Assessment Year 2012-13, declaring a total income at Rs. 2,41,13,439/-. 3.2 The case was selected for scrutiny through Computer Assisted Scrutiny Selection (CASS). During the assessment proceedings, the Assess....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....impugned/bogus purchases. 3.7. Aggrieved by this order, both the revenue and the assessee preferred an appeal before the Ld. ITAT, which, vide its combined order dated 28.06.2022, sustained the addition @ 6% of bogus purchases/accommodation entries in relation to the bogus purchases. 3.8. Further, a Miscellaneous Application, M.A. 63/SRT/2022, arising in ITA No. 919/AHD/2017, was filed pointing out a mistake in quoting the Assessment Year in the cause title of the Tribunal order dated 28.06.2022, which was allowed by order dated 14.08.2023, rectifying the error. 4. The present Tax Appeals are filed under section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, by the Appellant, arising from the orders dated 28.06.2022 passed by the Income Tax App....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....f purchases from bogus parties was liable to be added in the hands of the Assessee, reversing the decision of Hon'ble ITAT to restrict the addition to 25%.. 4. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case in law, the Hon'ble ITAT has justified in restricting the addition to 6% without considering the judgment of Calcutta High Court of in the case of PCIT vs. Premlata Tekriwal (143 taxmann.com 173) involving similar issue of purchase of bogus concern to suppress profits wherein the court held that "since it was established that expenditure was unexplained/bogus, entire amount of bogus expenditure was to be added to income of Assessee 5. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case in law, the Hon'ble....