TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (8) TMI 624
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....mstances of the case and in law, the CIT(A) has erred in upholding the assumption of jurisdiction under section 147 of the Act. 2.1 That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the CIT(A) did not appreciate that neither there was any tangible material to reopen the assessment nor there was application of mind to the information received. 2.2 That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the CIT(A) has erred in not appreciating that approval was mechanically granted without proper application of mind 3. That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the CIT(A) has erred in confirming the addition of Rs. 23,70,740/- made under section 68 of the Act. 3.1 That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the CIT(A) did not appreciate that there was no cause to treat purchase of diamonds of Rs. 23.70,740/- as mere accommodation entry. 3.2 That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the CIT(A) has erred in not appreciating that section 68 was not applicable to purchases made in the ordinary course of business. That the Appellant craves leave to add, alter, amend or va....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... which was unintentional. 8. I reiterate that the statements made above are true and correct. PRAYER It is, therefore, most respectfully prayed that: (i) delay of 68 days in filling appeal against the order of CIT(A)-18. New Delhi dated 20.6.2017 for the assessment year 2007-08 may be condoned and (ii) the appeal may be admitted and adjudicated upon on merits. It is prayed accordingly." 2.1 We have carefully considered the contents of the condonation application filed by the assessee. It is well settled that the purpose of the law is to advance substantive justice. The assessee has filed an application for condonation of delay of 68 days in filing the present appeal. The reasons for delay have been duly explained in the application supported by necessary documents. We find the explanation to be bona fide and sufficient. 2.2 Therefore, in the interest of justice, the delay is condoned and the appeal is admitted for adjudication on merits. In our considered opinion, the delay in filing the appeal is neither intentional nor contumacious. Accordingly, in the interest of substantial justice, the delay of 68 days in fil....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....identical as stated by the Ld. AR because in the referred matter, it is clearly mentioned that it was not possible to ensure that whether the assessee has received entries pertaining to loans and purchase and also there was no reference to any specific document except the annexure, which cannot be regarded as material or prime-facie evidence to establish the link to point out escapement of income. But in present case reasons for the belief clearly shows that it was on the basis of evidence collected and the statements of various persons recorded including that of Shri Bhanwarlal Jain and his sons during search established the modus operandi and led to detection of accommodation entries in the form of issuance of bogus sales bills and sufficient details were placed for the satisfaction, which is placed as below; 8. The Ld. AR also relied upon in the case of Sejal Exports (India) vs. DCIT in ITA No.- 3859 & 3858/M/2017, in which case was reopened u/s 147 of the Act, after finding information from DGIT (Inv.), Mumbai, dated 13.03.2014 and in which it was mentioned that the assessee availed the accommodation / fictitious bills from the 13 parties and the Co-ordinate Bench endorse th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... was restricted to 5% of above value by observing that it is a simple logic that when the AO has not questioned the sales / stocks then there is no logic to disallow the 100% bogus purchases and by relied upon aforesaid judgments, the Ld. AR submitted and requested that the addition may be restricted to 12.5% of the alleged bogus purchase of Rs. 23,70,740/- and further submitted that the Learned AO accepted the trading results as neither the sales nor stocks declared doubted and even Books of account were not rejected. 13. We find material substance in the submissions advanced on behalf of the assessee, and on the basis foregoing fact situation and following judicial precedents, we are of the considered opinion that it is fit case to restrict the addition to 12.5% of the total bogus purchase of Rs. 23,70,740/- and the Learned AO will work out the addition accordingly. Thus, the grounds are partly allowed. 14. In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed as indicated above. Order pronounced in the Open Court on 06.08.2025 ============= Document 1 (2) Reasons for the belief that income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment in the case of M/s, Goel Jewel....