TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (8) TMI 1372
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....purchase of cut and polished diamonds from M/s Prime Star. (Tax Effect Rs. 8,62,273/-) 3. The learned Commissioner of Income Tax, Appeals - NFAC, failed to understand that the Cut and Polished Diamonds have been exported out of India and as such it would not have been possible without the said purchase from M/s Prime Star of Rs. 27,90,528/- 4. Without prejudice to ground no. 2 & 3 hereinabove, the learned Commissioner of Income Tax. Appeals-NFAC erred in confirming the disallowance @ 100% of the alleged bogus purchase from M/s Prime Star. 5. Without prejudice to ground no.4 hereinabove, the learned Commissioner of Income Tax, Appeals NFAC failed to appreciate that without purchase, there can not be sales (in the instant case exports). So the learned CIT-A, NFAC should have directed the AO to make addition @ G.P. Rate and not the entire alleged bogus purchase. 6. The learned Commissioner of Income Tax Appeals, NFAC erred in holding that the appellant was liable to get its books audited as the total turnover for the year was Rs. 69,99,303/- which exceeded Rs. 60 Lakhs. In fact, the limit was raised to Rs. 1 Crore w.e.f. FY 2012-13 and since the app....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ith the aforesaid addition, assessee preferred an appeal before the First Appellate Authority, wherein the appeal of assessee has been dismissed by the ld. CIT(A) by recording the following analysis and decision: "3.1 For the Assessment Year 2013-14, the assessee had submitted a belated return on 07.04.2014, declaring its total income for Rs. 1,33,978/-. In such return of income the gross turnover was disclosed for Rs. 69,99,303/- from which applying the provisions of section 44AD, the assessee disclosed the Net Profit @8% for Rs. 5,59,944/- as the income from the business. Reducing from such figure the salary paid to the persons for Rs. 4,25,966/-, the assessee disclosed its total income for Rs. 1,33,978/-. It may be mentioned here that in terms of section 44AB, Section 44AD and Section 44AA there had been a violation of all these 3 provisions of the Act, as the assessee's turnover for the year of Rs. 69,99,303/- exceeded the statutory amount of Rs. 60,00,000/-. Therefore, the assessee firm was not entitled for any exemption from keeping books of accounts or disclosing income under the presumptive taxation scheme u/s. 44AD. It was also liable for compulsorily getting ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ties controlled by Shri Jain through banking channel and the cash was refunded to the beneficiary after reducing the commission for such accommodation entry provided by Shri Jain and his associates. One of such associate entities was a concern name M/s. Prime Star. It was also found from the documents seized from the Jains that such entity Prime Star had given accommodation entry of bogus purchase of polished diamond to the assessee firm for a value of Rs. 27,90,528/- during the year. In the appeal the assessee has submitted that the purchase from Prime Star was a genuine purchase and submitted copy of the ledger account and the corresponding bill raised by Prime Star. From the submitted ledger, it is seen that Prime Star was not a regular supplier of polished diamond to the assessee. The only time of purchase was made for the value of the Rs. 27,90,528/- for diamond measuring 330.24 ct. on 22.02.2013. Up to 31.03.2013 no payment against such purchase was made. In the appeal papers, the assessee has not submitted any documents to show that payment for the purchase was ever made afterwards. Although in the invoice [duplicate) submitted by the assessee, it shows that goods were deliv....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....the ld. CIT(A) was from M/s Impex Gems of Rs. 22,26,470/- and there were no other purchases from any such 7 other companies controlled by Shri Bhawarlal Jain. The whole premise and basis to acquire jurisdiction was vague and wrong assumption of facts. Since assessee had not filed any cross appeal or cross objection against the order of Ld. CIT (A) and we also tried to enquire from the Registry, whether assessee has filed any appeal against order dated 16/05/2024 before this Tribunal and it was found that there was no such appeal for A.Y.2012-13 against this order. Though the ld. CIT(A) has confirmed the entire purchases of Rs. 24,72,470/- debited in the books of accounts and deleted the balance addition, however, the entire purchases could not have been added, because the source of purchases are from the books, therefore, at the most some GP rate should have been applied. Since assessee has not challenged the order of the ld. CIT (A), accordingly, the order of the ld. CIT(A) confirming the addition of Rs. 24,72,470/- is upheld and the balance addition deleted by the ld. CIT(A) is found to correct on facts and material on record. The department has also not brought anything on recor....