2026 (1) TMI 471

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... Income Tax Act, 1961. 2. The issues raised in the cross appeals revolves around the addition for bogus purchases at Rs.31,45,803 made by the Assessing Officer for the purchases made from M/s. Rashmi Enterprises. Ld.CIT(A) has given part relief estimating the addition @12.5% of the alleged bogus purchases against which the Revenue is in appeal and the assessee has challenged the finding of ld.CIT(A) estimating the profit @12.5% of the alleged bogus purchases. 3. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee is a partnership firm engaged in the business of dealing in MS plates and profile cutting. Return of income for the A.Y. 2009- 10 furnished on 21.10.2009 declaring income of Rs.1,64,790. Return processed u/s. 143(1) of the Act. Sub....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... with the finding of ld.CIT(A) both the assessee as well as the Revenue are in appeal before this Tribunal. 7. Ld. Counsel for the assessee vehemently argued referring to the written submissions filed before ld.CIT(A) and further gave reference to the ledger account of the subsequent period in which the payments have been made to M/s. Rashmi Enterprises through Account Payee cheque. He also submitted that sales of the assessee have not been disputed at any stage and that the books of account have not been rejected by the Assessing Officer u/s. 145(3) of the Act. He however admitted that the quantitative details of the goods purchased and sold are not maintained but the gross profit of the assessee is consistent for past many years. 8.....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....,423.22 has been paid during F.Y. 2011-12. All these payments have been made by the assessee through Account Payee cheque issued from The Saraswat Cooperative Bank Ltd. OD Account. This fact remains uncontroverted by the ld. Departmental Representative and therefore one of the observation of the Assessing Officer for making the alleged disallowance that no payment was made to the said party is factually incorrect. Second reason for the disallowance of purchases alleged by the Assessing Officer is that no purchases were made from M/s. Rashmi Enterprises. Now in the instant case, assessee's sales have not been disputed, books of account have not been rejected u/s. 145(3) and the gross profit rates are also consistent. Proof of purchases along....