TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (5) TMI 2180
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... the circumstances and facts of our case, the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), has erred in law and on facts in confirming the action of Ld. DClT, Mumbai in upholding the re-opening of assessment u/s 148 as valid. The Assessee states that reopening of assessment u/s 148 is void ab initio and illegal since it is not the opinion of the Assessing Officer to reopen the assessment but the reopening has been done on the basis of the information received from the office of DGIT(Inv.), Mumbai of the Income Tax Department and such reopening is not sustainable in law. The Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), has erred in disregarding the decisions of Supreme Court and direct binding jurisdictional decisions which is binding upon....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....hases of Rs. 42,82,977/- i.e. Rs. 5,35,372/- in view of the binding Jurisdictional Bombay High Court decision in the case of the Principal Commission of Income Tax v. Suraj Infrastructures (P.) Ltd. [2023] 156 taxmann.com 192 (Bombay) dated 06/09/2023 and ITAT decisions including binding ITAT decisions in its own case for Asst. Year 2011-12 and Asst. Year 2012-13 and binding ITAT decision in case of its erstwhile partnership firm M/s. Quality Construction Co. for the Asst. Year 2010-11 wherein the disallowance is restricted to @ 12.5% of the alleged bogus purchases i.e. profit element attributable to the alleged bogus purchases from the total 100% disallowance made by the Assessing Officer. 4. In the circumstances and facts of our ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....27/03/2015, after recording the reasons for doing so. In response to which the assessee submitted that the original return filed be treated as the return of income filed in pursuance to the notice u/s 148 of the Act. During the course of the scrutiny assessment proceedings, on the basis of the information received from the investigation wing relating to the assessee, who has indulged in the practice of taking bogus purchase bills and routing it through books of account, the AO issued notice u/s 133(6) of the Act to the alleged parties issuing bogus bills. 3.1. On the basis of the information and report of the inspector, the AO came to know that no such party/vendor existed on the given address and hence he could not serve the notice u/s ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ine of business and held that "8. The ITAT in is impugned order had relied upon the judgments of Gujarat High Court in the case of Vijay Proteins Ltd. v. CIT [2015] 58 taxmann.com 44 and also in the case of CIT v. Smith P. Sheth [2023]. 38 taxmann.com 385/2019 Taxman 85 (Mag.)/356 ITR 451 and held that no uniform yardstick can be applied the estimating gross profit on bogus purchases which is depending upon the facts of different cases. The ITAT held that the Co-ordinate Beach in number of cases has taken a consistent view and directed AO to estimate gross profit of 12.5% on alleged bogus purchases and therefore, in the case at hand also directed AO to estimate gross profit at 12.5% on the bogus purchases. 9. Even on merit....