TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (5) TMI 2181
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... in dismissing the appeal w.r.t. Net Profit of Rs. 19,19,531/- computed at 12.5% of purchase of Rs. 1,53,56,245/- without considering the facts of case. 2. The appellant craves, leave to add, alters, amends or deletes any grounds of appeal at the time of hearing." 2. Brief facts of the case are that assessee is an individual,running a proprietary concern in the name of Bharat Steel Industries, engaged in the business of trading in ferrous and non-ferrous metal, iron and steel alloys. The assessee filed his return of income for A.Y. 2010-11 on 28.09.2010 declaring total income at Rs. 3,01,880/-. Initially, the return was processed under section 143(1). Subsequently, the case of assessee was reopened on the basis....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....fficer also recorded that assessee vide order dated 01.02.2016 submitted that to avoid the prolonged litigation, by following the decision of Gujarat High Court in CIT vs Simit P. Sheth in Tax Appeal No. 553 of 2016 and CIT Vs Bholanath Poly Fab (P) Ltd. in ITA No. 63 of 2012, profit suppressed in such transaction may be added. The assessing officer on recording relevant part of both the case laws accepted the contention of assessee and restricted the addition to the extent of 12.5% of purchases shown from such sixteen parties, thereby restricted the addition to the extent of Rs. 19,19,531/- and added under the assessment order. 3. Aggrieved by the additions in the assessmentorder, the assessee filed appeal before ld. CIT(A). Befor....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... in the Income Tax Authorities during assessment of appellate stage. The assessing officer made addition on the basis of information of bogus purchases received from DGIT (Investigation) and from Sales Tax Department. On the basis of such observation, the ld. CIT(A) dismissed the appeal of assessee. 4. Further, aggrieved the assessee has filed present appeal before Tribunal. Before Tribunal, the assessee has challenged only the addition of bogus purchase to the extent of 12.5% by taking plea that ld. CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeal with regard to net profit. 5. We have heard the submission of Learned Authorised Representative (ld. AR) of the assessee and the Learned Senior Departmental Representative (ld. Sr. DR) for the Revenue....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....bringing the gross profit rate on purchases at the same rate of other genuine purchases. As has been held by Jurisdictional High Court in PCIT Vs Mohammad Haji Adam & Co. in Tax Appeal No. 1004 of 2016 dated 11.02.2019. In alternative submission, the ld. AR of the assessee submits that in case gross profit addition is to be restricted, the benefit of profit declared on such purchases may be allowed as has been held by Mumbai Bench in Amrat B Prajapati in ITA No. No. 5982/Mum/2019 dated 29.01.2020. 6. On the other hand, the ld. Sr. DR for the Revenue supported the order of lower authorities. The ld. Sr. DR submits that Investigation Wing of Income Tax Department make investigation about the modus operandi of accommodation entry provider. ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....us evidences furnished by assessee was given by assessing officer. Consumption / sales of assessee is not disputed by assessing officer. The assessing officer solely relied upon the report of Investigation Wing. No doubt that before ld. CIT(A), the assessee has not filed written submission in response to three show cause notices issued under section 250 of Income Tax Act. The ld. CIT(A) decided of the issue on the basis of material available on record. The ld. CIT(A) gave his finding that assessee has not proved the purchases. We find that assessing officer has not given such finding rather on accepting alternative submission of assessee straightway restricted the addition / disallowed 12.5% of the purchases shown from 16 parties. Before us....