TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2026 (4) TMI 1190
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....before the Tribunal raising the following grounds of appeal: "1. That on the facts and circumstances of the case the Ld. Assessing Officer has eared in disallowing a portion of Purchase of Rs. 31,38,175/- on account of bogus purchases without proper verification. 2. That the Ld. Assessing Officer has failed to consider the fact that by disallowing the purchases, the gross profit rate has been increased which cannot be there in the appellant's business. 3. That the appellant craves leave to add/alter any of the grounds of appeal on or before the date of hearing." 3. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee had filed the return of income for AY 2018-19 showing total income of Rs.5,30,670/-. As per the in....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....had suo moto cancelled the registration on the same day or within the year or so. Thus, these entities were treated as paper entities. The Ld. AO also accessed the GST portal and noted that the nature of business activities of Dev Traders was retail and wholesale business of leather articles which was shown in the assessment order. Hence, it was concluded that the purchases were bogus. The assessee was not able to furnish the details of transport vehicles, the transportation bills, the delivery challans etc. to establish the genuineness of the purchases. Since the assessee was found to have made purchases of Rs.3,73,930/- from M/s. Hanuman Trading Company and Rs.88,13,399/- from M/s. Palvisco Metal & Machinery and the proprietor of M/s. Pal....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....defending the case with the help of various judgements but nothing significant was stated on the merits of the case, the findings of the AO with respect to the genuineness of the purchases. (ii). The Appellant has relied upon a plethora of judicial pronouncements in support of his contentions challenging the addition. While the decisions cited have been duly perused, it is noted that these judicial precedents though show some thematic similarity, cannot be applied in abstract and must be evaluated in the context of their own facts and circumstances. In the present case, the Appellant has failed to furnish acceptable supporting documents to establish the genuineness of the purchases-requirements which form the cornerstone of the tax....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....sallowance of 25% of the alleged purchases, amounting to Rs. 31,38,175/-, is reasonable and justified. Accordingly, the addition made by the assessing officer is upheld. In result, the Appeal is dismissed herewith." 4. Aggrieved with the order of the Ld. CIT(A), the assessee has filed the appeal before the Tribunal. 5. Rival contentions were heard and the submissions made have been examined. At the outset, the Ld. AR of the assessee mentioned that the books were audited and the disallowance has been excessively made and requested that 10% of the purchases may be disallowed which is the likely profit embedded in such purchases. The Ld. DR relied upon the order of the Ld. CIT(A) and requested that the same may be upheld. 6. ....