TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (7) TMI 182
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....0% as against the 20% addition of Rs. 15,23,887/-made by AO u/s. 69C of the Act, on account of availing accommodation entries of bogus purchases amounting to Rs. 76,19,437/- from three hawala parties, identified by the Sales Tax Department of Maharashtra ?" 2. "Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, Ld. CIT(A) has erred in restricting the addition upto 4.40% as against the 20% addition of Rs. 15,23,887/-, by ignoring the fact that the action of AO was based on the discreet report of the DGIT (Inv.) Mumbai, disclosed the fact that the three firms were bogus/hawala dealers, involved with a sole purpose of providing accommodation entries of bogus purchases and the assessee firm was found to be one of beneficiar....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... as per regular books of accounts is not justified?" 6. Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case and in laws, the Ld.CIT(A) was justified in holding that income from bogus purchase transaction should be restricted to 4.40% of total value of bogus purchase transactions, although there was no dispute that the bogus purchases were made and so act of infraction of law was committed by the assessee on provision of section 74(1A) of the Maharashtra Value Added Tax Act 2002 and such purchases are not allowable as per express provisions u/s. 37 of the Act ?" 7. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the decision of the Ld. CITIA), is right in view of the latest decision of the Hon'ble Supreme ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... similar issue of bogus purchases, was already the law of the land when the Ld.CIT(A) has pronounced it's order on 05.02.20257 10. "Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, Ld. CIT(A) has erred in restricting the addition without appreciating the fact that in the case of M/s. Swetamber Steels Ltd. (Supra), the Hon'ble ITAT, Ahmadabad, had confirmed the disallowance of the bogus purchase, by stating that the purchases shown from respective parties were found nongenuine and the decision of the ITAT was upheld by Hon'ble Gujarat High Court and also by the Hon'ble Supreme Court? 11. The Tax- Effect involved in the instant case is Rs. 8,94,770/-, which is below the prescribed limit as per C....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... is not received such notice. The assessee has not proved the genuineness of purchases by showing octroi receipt for the proof of delivery or transportation from all three parties, still the assessing officer was reasonable in disallowing only 20% of purchases shown from hawala parties. The assessing officer disallowed/ worked out disallowances of purchases of Rs. 15,23,887/-. The ld. CIT(A) allowed substantial relief to the assessee and restricted to the addition of bogus purchases to the extent of 4.40% only. The finding of the ld CIT(A) is erroneous and contrary to the facts. The assessee has not proved the delivery of goods. The ld. Sr. DR for the revenue submits that order passed from assessing officer may be restored by setting aside ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Anandeep Metal and Rajratan Metal Industries were returned back and third party Ramani Metals has not filed any reply. The assessee in order to justify the genuineness of purchase furnished copy of purchases ledger account and bank statement showing the payment to the parties. The assessing officer recorded that assessee has not furnished delivery challans and corresponding sales to third party, copy of octroi receipt and transportation receipt were not furnished. The assessee failed to link the material purchase with sales. The assessing officer, thus, rejected the contention of assessee. I find that assessing officer by referring certain case law including on the decision of Gujarat High Court in CIT Vs Bholanath Ply Fab P. Ltd. (2013) 3....