SUDHIR DALICHAND JAIN, SURAT V. ITO, WARD-3(3)(4), SURAT

CO 4/SRT/2020

• Counselvise Citation: [2022] 104 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 1813 (ITAT-SURAT)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 3 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Cross Objection
• Pronouncement Date: 25-07-2022
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Next Hearing Date: 31-05-2022
• Assessment Year: 2013-2014
• Appeal Filed On: 22-07-2020
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Bogus purchase

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, SURAT BENCH, SURAT BEFORE SHRI PAWAN SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND Dr. ARJUN LAL SAINI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No. 131 to 135/Srt/2020 (AY: 2008-09 & 2011-12 to 2014-15) (Hearing in Virtual Court) I.T.O., Ward- 3(3)(4) Surat. Vs Sudhir Dulichand Jain, 204, Archan Apartment, Shivasish Sankul, B/h Gangeshwar Mahadev Temple, Adajan, Surat-395008. PAN : AGAPJ 8332N Appellant / Revenue Respondent / assessee C.O. No. 01 to 05/SRT/2020 (Arising out of ITA No. 131 to 135/Srt/2020) Sudhir Dulichand Jain, 204,Archan Apartment, Shivasish Sankul, B/h Gangeshwar Mahadev Temple, Adajan, Surat-395008. PAN : AGAPJ8332N Vs. I.T.O., Ward- 3(3)(4) Suart. APPELLANT RESPONDEDNT Revenue by Shri H.P. Meena, CIT-DR Assessee by Shri Himanshu Gandhi, C.A. Date of hearing 01/06/2022 Date of pronouncement 26/07/2022 Order under section 254(1) of Income Tax Act PER BENCH; 1. This group of ten appeals, out of which five appeal by revenue and cross objections by assessee in all appeal are ITA No. 131 to 135/Srt/2020 with CO No.01 to 05/Srt/2020 Sudhir Dulichand Jain (AY 2008-09, 2011-12 to 2014-15) 2 directed against the common order of learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-3, Surat (in short, the ld. CIT(A) dated 21/02/2020 for the Assessment years (AY) 2008-09 to 2014-15. In all the appeals, the facts are common, except the variations of disallowance of bogus purchases, the revenue as well as the assessee has raised common grounds of appeal/cross objection in different years. The additions in all the appeals were made on account of bogus purchases shown from Rajendra Jain and his group, who were declared as entry provider by the Income Tax Department. Therefore, with the consent of parties, all the appeals and cross objections were clubbed and heard together and are decided by the consolidated order to avoid the conflicting decision. For appreciation of fact, the facts in ITA No. 132/Srt/2020 for the A.Y. 2011-12 and Cross Objection therein by assessee are treated as a lead case. The revenue in its appeal has raised following grounds of appeal: “1 Whether, on facts and in law the ld. CIT(A) was justified in partly allowing the appeal of the assessee and estimating disallowance at @ 5% inspite of the fact that the AO has made the addition of Rs. 15,21,23,177/- being @ 25% of the total bogus purchases, referring