TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (12) TMI 660
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....y the AO on account bogus purchases from M/s. Mohan Enterprises, a paper/dummy company of Shri Bhawarlal Jain Group, without considering the fact that the action of the AO was based on the information of the DGIT (Investigation Wing) Mumbai, who have proved beyond doubt with the evidences/documents, during and post search and seizure that M/s. Mohan Enterprises, a dummy entity, was controlled & owned by Shri Bhawarlal Jain Group, involved in providing fake invoices for bogus purchases through dummy entities and the assessee was found to be one of such beneficiary who has obtained invoices without actual delivery of goods or materials ? " 3. "Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred by ignoring the element of reasons for procuring of bogus invoices, when it was observed that GP on these bogus invoices were almost matching with the GP, as per genuine invoices and therefore, such estimation of income out of bogus purchases with GP, as per regular books of accounts is not justified?" 4. "Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, Ld. CIT(A) has erred in estimating the income of bogus Purchases o....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ce of the bogus purchase, by stating that the purchases shown from respective parties were found non- genuine and the decision of the ITAT was upheld by Hon'ble Gujrat High Court and also by the Hon'ble Supreme Court?" 9. " Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, Ld CIT(A) has erred in not considering that after invocation of provisions of section 145(3) of the Act, the Assessing Officer acquired the mandate even to add the whale amount of purchases found as bogus to the total income of the assessee and without considering the decision in Sri. Ganesh Rice Mills Vs. CIT 294 ITR 316 (All), wherein the entire amount of bogus purchases from parties which are found to be non- genuine was disallowed and the same was also upheld?" 10. " Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, Ld. CIT(A) has erred in restricting the addition to 6% as against the 100% addition of Rs. 6,66,602/- made by the AO, by ignoring the fact that the decision of Hon'ble ITAT in the case of M/s. SAI Diamond, (ITA. No. 3165/Mum /2023, referred by Ld. CIT(A), for deciding this appeal has been challenged by the Department before Hon'ble Bom....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d letter dated 16/04/2014 requesting to treat the original return filed on 20/11/2010 in response to the notice u/s. 148 of the Act. The assessee requested the Ld. AO to furnish reasons recorded before issuance of notice u/s. 148 of the Act. The Ld. AO on 19/06/2014 provided the reasons recorded to the assessee which is scanned and reproduced as under:- The assessee thereafter vide letter dated 02/02/2015 raised various objections challenging the reopening of the assessment based on the reasons recorded which was rejected by the Ld. AO vide order dated 12/02/2015. 2.2. The Ld. AO thereafter called for various details during the re-assessment proceedings, which were furnished by the assessee. The Ld. AO, based on the information from Investigation Wing of the Department, formed the opinion that assessee was a beneficiary of accommodation entries of bogus purchases from Mohit Enterprises managed by Bhawarlal Jain and Manish Jain of bogus purchases amounting to Rs. 6,66,602/-. The Ld. AO observed that, in the statement recorded by Bhawarlal Jain and Praveen Jain, there was admission that all the concerns managed by them were in the business of providing accommodation entries in ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... is a normal practice in the case of accommodation entries that bills and vouchers and ledger accounts are up to date. The fact that the Sales Tax Department has cancelled their TIN and also it has been brought out in extensive enquiries done by them that the entities in question are not genuine and are only providing accommodation entries. In view of the above and also in view of the detailed findings given by the AO in his assessment order, I hold that there is no infirmity in the action of the AO in treating these purchases as bogus. As regards the contention of the appellant that the statement of Bhanwarlal Jain, on the basis of which the addition has been made, was not provided it is held that the addition has been made on the basis of independent analysis done by the AO on the basis of documents available on record and therefore there is no substance in this argument of the appellant also. 7.3.2 As regards the quantum of addition to be made, I am in agreement with the submission of the appellant that the AO has not disputed the sales made by it and since there can be no sales without purchase only the profit element embedded in the purchases may be added back. The AO has h....