TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (5) TMI 1422
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....doned. 2. The application stands disposed of. ITA 134/2025 & CM APPL. 27604/2025 (Exemption) 3. The Revenue has filed the present appeal under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [the Act], inter alia, impugning the order dated ITA 134/2025 Page 2 of 8 30.09.2024 [impugned order] passed by the learned Income Tax Appellate Tribunal [ITAT] in ITA No.2562/Del/2023 in respect of the Assessment Year [AY] 2011-12 captioned Garg Acrylics Limited v. DCIT. 4. The Assessee had preferred the aforesaid appeal impugning the order dated 04.01.2019 passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-5, Ludhiana [CIT(A)] dismissing the assessee's appeal against the assessment order dated 30.11.2018 passed under Section 147 read with Sect....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ection 148 of the Act and framed the assessment order assessing the Assessee's income for the AY 2011-12 at Rs. 32,07,74,970/-. The AO made an addition at the rate of 20 percent of the amount of the purchases, which according to the AO were made from the concerned vendors. 8. The Assessee appealed the said decision before the CIT(A) and the CIT(A) passed an order dated 24.07.2018 restricting the disallowance to 16.26 percent of the purchases in question instead of 20 percent, as assessed by the AO. 9. The Assessee appealed the said CIT(A)'s order dated 24.07.2018 before the learned ITAT. The Revenue also preferred a cross appeal against the said order to the extent that the CIT(A) had restricted the disallowance. The learned ITAT had ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ated 31.05.2023. The CIT(A) not only affirmed the findings that the purchases made by the Assessee were bogus, but also enhanced the disallowance from 20 percent to the entire amount of the purchases of Rs. 1,62,13,633/- under Section 69C of the Act. It is material to note that the CIT(A) held that the said suppliers were nonexistent. 14. The Assessee appealed the said decision dated 31.05.2023 of the CIT(A) before the learned ITAT, which is allowed in terms of the impugned order. 15. A plain reading of the order dated 31.05.2023 passed by the CIT(A) indicates that the CIT(A) was moved by the assessment orders made in the case of two persons from whom allegedly bogus purchases were made by the Assessee. It was noted that the assessmen....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....from the office of ITO (Investigation) Gurgaon that the assessee has made payment of Rs 47,91,307/- during the year to M/s Ramesh Kumar Tarun Kumar, Prop. Tarun Kumar on account of purchase of cotton. As per another information received from the said office of the ITO (Investigation), Gurgaon, that a sum of Rs 1,14,22,326/- has also been received by Shri Kaushal Kumar Jain, Prop. M/s Mittal Traders, Adampur, Hisar from the assessee company. It was further informed that as per enquiries conducted and also through Inspector, Shri Kaushal Kumar Jain, Prop. Mittal Traders could not be found on the given address. The Id. AO made disallowance amounting to Rs 32,42,726/- being 20% of Rs 1,62,13,633/-, purchases made by the assessee company from M/....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....t by any stretch of imagination be termed as perverse or unsustainable. 19. We also note that this appeal would not be maintainable on account of tax effect being lower than the threshold limit of Rs. 2.00 Crores, as stipulated in Central Board of Direct Taxes Circular dated 17.09.2024. However, the Revenue insists on presenting the present appeal on the ground that this case falls within exception of cases relating to accommodation entries. This contention of the Revenue is also insubstantial. Plain reading of the assessment order indicates that the AO had only enhanced 20 percent of the purchases by accepting that the purchases were genuine, although not from the same parties. This is not a case of accommodation entry. However, CIT(A) ....