TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2024 (1) TMI 1479
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... arising out of the judgment and order dated 22nd February 2022 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Surat (for short 'the Tribunal') in ITA No.294/SRT/2018 for the Assessment Year 2013-2014:- "(i) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. Tribunal was justified in estimating the addition in respect of bogus purchases at rate of 6% of such purchases as against disallowance made by the AO at the rate of 100% of such purchases amounting to Rs. 4,08,88767/- ignoring the facts that these purchases are sham transactions fabricated through bogus paper concerns of Shri Gautam Jain Group entities which were engaged in providing accommodation entries?" (ii) "Whether on the facts and in the circumstance....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ee preferred an appeal before the CIT (Appeals), Surat who vide order dated 20th February 2018 dismissed the appeal of the assessee and confirmed the addition made by the Assessing Officer. [3.5] Feeling aggrieved, the assessee preferred an appeal before the Tribunal. The Tribunal by the impugned order dated 22nd February 2022 dismissed the appeal and accordingly, restricted the disputed purchases to 6%. [4.1] At the outset, learned advocate Mr. Rudram Trivedi for the appellant-Revenue submitted that the Tribunal has relied upon the judgment of the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court (Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice N. V. Anjaria and Hon'ble Mr. Justice Niral R. Mehta) in case of Principal Commissioner of Income Tax Versus Pankaj K. Choudhary Inco....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Appeal No.617 of 2022 has held as under: "5. The Assessing Officer noticed the contentions of the assessee that confirmation, purchase bills, bank statement, stock register, copy of ITR were already filed. The Assessing Officer was, however, of the view that transactions were bogus and merely that it routed through the banking channel, was not sufficient to conclude that they were the genuine transactions. The contention of the assessee that he had not dealt with the Bhanvarlal Jain group was also negatived. The appellate Commissioner took the view that disallowance was required to be sustained at 12.5% of the purchase. The Assessing Officer was directed accordingly to workout disallowance. In para 10.6, the Commissioner of Income Tax (A....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he tune of Rs. 4,34,00,343/-, which was reduced to 12.5% at Rs. 54,25,040/-. Thereafter, the issue was dealt with by the appellate Tribunal. The appellate Tribunal endorsed to the view taken by the appellate Commissioner. It was observed that Assessing Officer failed to consider the evidence furnished by the assessee. 5.3 Considering the facts and relevant aspect, the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal partially allowed the appeal of the assessee to further reduce the disallowance at 6%. In so concluding, the Tribunal observed in paragraph No.21 as under, ".......during the financial year under consideration the assessee has shown total turnover of Rs. 66,09,62,458/-. The assessee has shown Gross Profit @ 78% and net Profit @ 0.02% (page 11 ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....possibility of revenue leakage. In the result the ground No. 2 of appeal raised by the assessee is partly allowed and the grounds of appeal raised by revenue are dismissed." 6. The view taken and the conclusion arrived at by the appellant Tribunal are based on material before it and after analysing the facts and figure available before it. When the Tribunal has thought it fit to reduce the disallowance at 6% from 12.5%, the Tribunal had before it the facts which were duly analysed by it. No interference is called for in the said conclusion and findings of the Tribunal in the present appeal by this court. 6.1 The another weighing aspect is that the Tax Appeal No. 674 of 2022 in Principal Commissioner of Income Tax 1, Surat vs. M/s. Surya....