2023 (3) TMI 1603

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....elay owning to the Covid-19 Pandemic and also for the reason that the assessee was travelling to Surat frequently to supervise his new proprietorship concern. The assessee has filed an Affidavit to condone the delay for the reason that the assessee has a good case on merits. 3. After hearing both the rival submissions and perused the materials on record, we are of the considered view that the delay in filing the present appeal may be condoned as delay caused due to 'sufficient reason'. 4. The assessee has challenged the addition of Rs. 1,32,45,297/- on account of peak balance of alleged bogus purchase, disallowance of deduction u/s. 80D of the Act amounting to Rs. 5,968/- and disallowance of 80G amounting to Rs. 16,000/-. ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....by various hawala parties. The A.O. observed that 'M/s. Leo Gems' has taken accommodation entry during the impugned year from two parties specified below: Sr. No. Name of the Hawala Dealer TIN Number Total Amount 1 Deep Enterprises 27750595164V 31,085,117 2 Rashmi Enterprises 27580657871V 1,607,648 3     32,692,765 8. The A.O. further stated that the said dealers have given declaration to the Sales Tax department stating that they have issued bogus bills without sale of any goods to the assessee under various invoices, out of which the above two entities pertain to the impugned year. The assessee has denied the said fact in its submission by stating that the said information was merely on suspicioun without....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....e an addition of 5% on the bogus purchase which according to the ld. CIT (A) was not applicable in the present case as the A.O. for this impugned year has not considered 30% of the profit like in earlier years and has rather made the addition on peak credit of the bogus purchases. The ld. CIT (A) distinguished the earlier tribunal's order from this present appeal and upheld the action of the A.O. The ld. CIT (A) also relied on the statement of the assessee recorded u/s. 131 of the Act where the assessee is said to have admitted as being beneficiary of accommodation entries. The ld. CIT (A) relied on the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of CIT vs. Durgaprasad More [1971] 82 ITR 540 (SC) and Sumati Dayal vs. CIT [1995] 214 I....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ason that the A.O. had made addition on 30% of the gross profit which was restricted to 5% by the Tribunal for the previous years, whereas the impugned year the A.O. has made addition on peak credit and that the said decision of the Tribunal would not be applicable for this impugned year. The ld. DR relied on the decision of the lower authorities. 12. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the materials available on record. It is evident that on identical facts for A.Ys. 2208-09 to 2011-12, the tribunal by relying on the various decisions has held that for the nature of business carried out by the assessee, it is pertinent to estimate the profit @ 5% on the disputed purchases and had thereby directed the A.O. to make addition on 5....