2024 (12) TMI 1644

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....e order of the ld. CIT(A) reducing the addition to Rs.24,72,470 as against addition of Rs.7,83,88,794/- made by the AO on account of alleged bogus purchases. 3. None appeared on behalf of the respondent assessee despite service of notices sent on the registered e-mail ID and RPAD. Accordingly, the appeal of the assessee is decided on merits. 4. The brief facts are that the assessee is engaged in the business of trading in cut and polished diamonds. The return of income was filed on 20/12/2012 declaring total income of Rs.93,062/-. The assessee's case was reopened u/s.147 on the basis of some information received from DGIT (INV) Mumbai that the search has been conducted in the case of Shri Bhawarlal Jain and Group wherein it was allege....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....een denied also by the assessee that he never made any such purchases. The ld. CIT (A) has noted the following facts:- "a) During the appellate stage, the assessee submitted its copies of final account for FY 2011-12, from where it is seen that total turnover shown by the assessee was only for Rs. 34,43,269/-. In the purchase side, it disclosed import of rough diamonds for Rs. 46,23,327/- and local purchase of polished diamonds for Rs 24,72,470/- only. Therefore, the amount which was subjected as bogus purchase of Rs. 7,83,88,794/- was denied by the assessee to be ever purchased by it. (b) However, in the disclosed accounts, it agreed that the local purchase of polished diamonds for Rs. 24,72,470/- was purchased from one, ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ex Gems, tried to convince that the purchase was genuine It is seen that the principal quantum of consideration of 86.45 Ct. of diamond for Rs 24,72,470/- was also increased by VAT @ 1 per cent, making the total amount of purchase for Rs. 24,97,195/-. The payment against such purchase was stated to be on 21/03/2012, through RTGS and the said Impex Gems gave a confirmation of receipt of such RTGS amount. (d) By submission of these papers, the assessee tried to convince that the purchase was genuine. However, no material evidence of actual delivery of the said diamond has been produced for examination. It is the beauty of planning of arrangement of bogus entries that the transactions on paper and movement of fund through bank transfe....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....count. If the assesse only made local purchase of Rs.24,72,470/-, then what was the information and material that assessee has made bogus purchases of Rs.7.84 Crores. The only purchase as noted by 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 aga....