TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (8) TMI 1258
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') dated 22.12.2018 by the Assessing Officer, JCIT, Special Range-9, New Delhi (hereinafter referred to as 'ld. AO'). 2. The only effective issue to be decided in this appeal of the assessee is as to whether the ld CIT(A) was justified in taxing only the profit element estimated @12.5% on the value of alleged ingenuine purchase in the facts and circumstances of the case. 3. None appeared on behalf of the assessee despite issuance of notice on several occasions. Hence, we proceed to dispose of the appeal on hearing the ld DR and based on the materials available on record. 4. The assessee is a company and filed its return of income for AY 2013-14 on 27.09.2013 declaring loss of Rs. 2,67,2....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....artment on 17.12.2015 in the hands of the 2 Jain brothers. It revealed during that search that Jain Brothers are involved in providing accommodation entries to various beneficiaries through cheque/ DD/ RTGS/ NEFT in lieu of cash through various paper and dummy companies floated and controlled by them. The ld AO confronted the assessee with the fact that it had made purchases of Rs. 7,44,50,000/- from entities controlled by Jain Brothers and show caused as to why the same should not be added as bogus purchase in terms of Section 69C of the Act. 6. The assessee submitted that payment for purchase made from the concerned parties against supply of goods were made by the assessee through account payee cheques. The assessee also enclosed the p....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... be brought to tax and such profit element was estimated by the NFAC to be @12.5% by placing reliance on the decision of the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Simit P Seth reported in 356 ITR 451 (Gujarat). Aggrieved by this order, the assessee is in appeal before us. 9. It is not in dispute that the additions on account of bogus purchase have been made in the instant case by applying Section 69C of the Act. First of all, in our considered opinion, the provisions of Section 69C of the Act per se could not be made applicable in the instant case in view of the fact that the purchase made by the assessee in the sum of Rs. 7,44,50,000/- from the aforesaid 2 parties have already been accounted and reflected in the books of acc....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....The ld DR before us filed written submission before us stating that wrong mentioning of particular Section would not be fatal to the addition made in the instant case. In support of such proposition, he placed reliance on various decisions. We are unable to persuade ourselves to accept to the said submission of the ld DR in as much as the entire gamut of transaction and the entire onus on the part of the assessee completely changes with regard to each and every section. For some sections, the onus would be on the assessee to discharge to the satisfaction of the ld AO. For some sections, the onus need to be discharged by the revenue to the assessee. The assessee can always be expected to reply only to the queries raised by the revenue during....