TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (6) TMI 139
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....(A) erred in restricting the disallowance of bogus purchases to 15% as against 100% by the assessing officer in order u/s 144 r.w.s. 147 of the IT Act? 2. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in overlooking the explicit finding of the Directorate of Investigation, Mumbai that the assessee has undertaken various transactions with 2 parties who were either listed as Hawala Dealer or were fictitious and non traceable. 3. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in restricting the disallowance to 15% by not considering the fact that the assessee also failed to prove the identity and genuineness of the transactions / ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ished. The AO ultimately completed assessment under section 144 r.w.s 147 on 30.09.2016. The AO while passing assessment order treated the purchases of Rs. 2,77,350/- from Krishna Corporation and of Rs. 15,15,000/- for Ramanand Sale Services which were shown in the list of bogus/Hawala purchases. Thereby, the AO disallowed/treated purchases of Rs. 17,92,350/- as bogus purchases and added under section 69C. 3. Aggrieved by the additions in the assessment order, the assessee filed appeal before Ld. CIT(A). Before Ld. CIT(A) assessee claimed that goods purchased from Ramanand Sales Services and Krishna Corporation were genuine. The goods from Ramanand Sales Services was supplied on 13.12.2010 and 02.12.2010. The assessee purchased Round Bra....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....oth the entity were Hawala parties. The assessee has not furnished proof of actual delivery. The AO made 100% of disallowances of purchases shown from both the parties. The Ld. CIT(A) despite recording the fact that no proof of actual delivery was furnished, restricted the addition to the extent of 15% of total expenditure debited on account of such purchases. The Ld. DR for the revenue submits that in a recent decision, the Bombay High Court in PCIT V. Kanak Impex (2025) 172 taxmann.com 283 (Bom) upheld the addition of 100% of purchases shown from Hawala Parties. The Ld. DR for the revenue thus prayed that finding of CIT(A) may be reversed and that of AO may be restored. 5. On the other hand, the Ld. AR of the assessee supported that or....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nvestigation wing. The assessment was completed under section 144 r.w.s 147. The AO made addition of aggregate of purchase shown from Krishna Corporation and Ramanand Sales Pvt. Ltd. The AO has made 100% addition against the purchase from aforesaid two parties. Before Ld. CIT(A) the assessee filed detailed return submissions. Copy of such submissions is placed on record in the form of paper book. Along with the submissions the assessee also furnished copy of purchase order, along with quantitative detail and the assessee also furnished showing the payment made to both the parties. Thus the assessee has placed sufficient evidences to substantiate purchases from both the parties. I find that the assessee in its short written notes claimed tha....