TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2024 (1) TMI 1500
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....(for short 'the Act') raising following substantial questions of law arising out of the judgment and order dated 13th April 2022 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Surat (for short 'the Tribunal') in ITA No.289/SRT/2019 for the Assessment Year 2008-2009:- "(i) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. Tribunal was justified in estimating the addition in respect of bogus purchases at rate of 6% of such purchases as against disallowance made by the AO at the rate of 100% of such purchases amounting to Rs. 18,94,86,409/- ignoring the facts that these purchases are sham transactions fabricated through bogus paper concerns of Shri Pravin Jain Group entities which were engaged in providing ac....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... of unexplained purchases being accommodation entries. [3.4] Being aggrieved, the assessee preferred an appeal before the CIT (Appeals), Surat who vide order dated 12th March 2019 partly allowed the appeal of the assessee and restricted the disallowance to 5% of the impugned purchases. [3.5] Feeling aggrieved, the Revenue as well as the assessee preferred an appeal before the Tribunal. The Tribunal by the impugned order dated 13th April 2022 dismissed the appeal of the assessee regarding re-opening of assessment under Section 147 of the Act and partly allowed the appeal of the Revenue and restricted the disallowance at 6% of impugned purchases. [4.1] At the outset, learned advocate Mr. Rudram Trivedi for the appellant-Revenue submi....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....T/2018 partly, and dismiss assessee's appeal in ITA No.272/SRT/2019 for A.Y 2013- 14. We allow Revenue's appeal in ITA No.763/SRT/2018 partly and dismiss assessee's Co No.18/SRT/2021." [6] This Court in case of Pankaj K. Choudhary (Supra) while dismissing the Tax Appeal No.617 of 2022 has held as under: "5. The Assessing Officer noticed the contentions of the assessee that confirmation, purchase bills, bank statement, stock register, copy of ITR were already filed. The Assessing Officer was, however, of the view that transactions were bogus and merely that it routed through the banking channel, was not sufficient to conclude that they were the genuine transactions. The contention of the assessee that he had not dealt with the Bh....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....impugned purchases would be reasonable and would meet the ends of justice. Hence, the disallowance is restricted to 12.5% of the impugned purchases for the assessment year in appeal." 5.2 The disallowance at 100% was made in the assessment order for the year under consideration to the tune of Rs. 4,34,00,343/-, which was reduced to 12.5% at Rs. 54,25,040/-. Thereafter, the issue was dealt with by the appellate Tribunal. The appellate Tribunal endorsed to the view taken by the appellate Commissioner. It was observed that Assessing Officer failed to consider the evidence furnished by the assessee. 5.3 Considering the facts and relevant aspect, the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal partially allowed the appeal of the assessee to ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....tion, but only the income component of the disputed transaction, to prevent the possibility of revenue leakage. Therefore, considering overall facts and circumstances of the present case, we are of the view that disallowances @ 6% of impugned purchases / disputed purchases would be sufficient to meet the possibility of revenue leakage. In the result the ground No. 2 of appeal raised by the assessee is partly allowed and the grounds of appeal raised by revenue are dismissed." 6. The view taken and the conclusion arrived at by the appellant Tribunal are based on material before it and after analysing the facts and figure available before it. When the Tribunal has thought it fit to reduce the disallowance at 6% from 12.5%, the Tribuna....