TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (8) TMI 1846
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....by the assessee in its appeal are reproduced as under: 1. On the facts and circumstances of the case in law the Ld CIT(A) has erred in confirming reopening of the case which is bad in Law. 2 On the facts and circumstances of the case in law the Ld CIT(A) has erred in confirming addition of Rs 4,46,933/- on account of alleged Bogus Purchases 2.1 The grounds raised by the Revenue in its appeal are reproduced as under: 1. "Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, Ld. CIT(A) is right in restricting the addition to 12.5% of the I total bogus purchase as against addition by the AO of 100% of bogus purchases even when L.d. CIT(A) itself agreed with the conclusion drawn by AQ that the purchases we....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....id the principle of preponderanee of human probabilities and also not considering that paper and banking audit-unil can he castly created in such cases of bogus purchases?"* 6. " Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the order of Ld. CIT(A) is right in not considering the latest decision of Hon'ble Apex Bombay High Court on this issue in case of Kanak Impex that addition a 100% of bogus purchase can be made in such cases?"* 3. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that the assessee filed its return of income on 29.09.2012 declaring total income of Rs.5,95,292/-. The said return was duly processed under section 143(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... the purchases. However, upon examination thereof, the Assessing Officer found the same to be insufficient and unsatisfactory. The Assessing Officer, inter alia, recorded the following findings: "3.6 The submission / details furnished by the assessee as also the materials available on record have been carefully perused and considered. From the above discussions, the followings facts emerge (i) The Sale Tax Department has conducted independent enquires in each of the 'non genuine' parties and conclusively proved that these parties are engaged in the business of providing accommodation entries only. The parties are issuing bills without delivering any goods and services. (ii) Independent enquiries / investig....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....vi) Mere filing of evidences in support of purchases and payment through account payee cheque cannot be conclusive in a case where genuineness of transaction is in doubt. Payment by account payee cheques are not sacrosanct. (vii) The Sales Tax Department certified that the aforesaid parties are 'non genuine operators' after conducting independent enquiries. It is evident that the assessee did not make any effort to controvert the finding recorded by the DGIT (Inv.) and it made no efforts to produce the seller parties. (viii) If all the evidences point to the fact that no actual goods were supplied by the above parties, then the argument of assessee that it purchased goods in good faith is not tenable. Thus, from th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... department prima facie indicated that income has escaped assessment, the AO rightly issued notice u/s 148 after duly considering the information received and recorded his reasons for re-opening by applying his mind independently. The fresh material/information received was sufficient to re-open the case for AY 2012-13 which was within six years from the end of assessment year. In view of this, the assessee's plea that the conditions for re-opening of the assessment was not fulfilled is rejected and ground no. 1 filed by the assessee is dismissed. As regards the merits of the case, the CIT(A) vide order CIT(A)- 53/IT-200/ITO-19(1)(2)/2017-18 dated 02.01.2028 confirmed the addition adopting 12.5% of the value of the transaction ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ed to be unreasonable. Thus the Grounds of Appeal are dismissed." 6.1 The Ld. counsel further referred to the assessment order for assessment year 2009-10 where, also the Assessing Officer restricted the disallowance to 12.5% of the purchases from the said party M/s Sundha Steel Pvt. Ltd. The learned CIT(A) has followed the said consistent view. 6.2 The principle of consistency, as laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Radhasoami Satsang v. CIT [1992] 193 ITR 321 (SC) and further explained in Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd. v. Union of India [2006] 282 ITR 273 (SC), as also applied by the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in Pr. CIT v. Quest Investment Advisors (P.) Ltd. [2018] 96 taxmann.com 157 (Bom), mandates that in the absence of a....