VBC Jewellery, CHENNAI V. DCIT, CHENNAI

ITA 1465/CHNY/2017

• Counselvise Citation: [2018] 119 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 4828 (ITAT-CHENNAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 4 month(s) 18 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 24-10-2018
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Assessment Year: 2008-2009
• Appeal Filed On: 06-06-2017
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: A R V SREENIVASAN IRS
• Assessee Lawyers: S SRIDHAR
• Keywords: Bogus purchase; Accommodation entries; Bogus loan

Judgement Text

, , IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, A BENCH : CHENNAI . , ! ' # ' $ . %& , ( * + [BEFORE SHRI ABRAHAM P. GEORGE, ACCOUNTANT MEMBE R AND SHRI DUVVURU RL REDDY , JUDICIAL MEMBER ] ./I.T.A. NOS.653, 654, 1464 & 1465/CHNY/2017. / ASSESSMENT YEARS : 2009-10, 2011-12, 2007-08 & 2008-09 M/S. VBC JEWELLERY, NO.78, G.N. CHETTY ROAD, T. NAGAR, CHENNAI 600 017 VS. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, NON CORPORATE CIRCLE 2, CHENNAI. [PAN AAAFV 5601N] ./I.T.A. NOS.655/CHNY/2017. / ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2009-10 M/S. VBC JEWELLERS, NO.76, G.N. CHETTY ROAD, T. NAGAR, CHENNAI 600 017. VS. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, NON CORPORATE CIRCLE 2, CHENNAI. [PAN AAAFV 2851D] ( ,- / APPELLANT) ( ./,- /RESPONDENT) / APPELLANT BY : SHRI. S. SRIDHAR, ADVOCATE /RESPONDENT BY : SHRI. AR.V. SREENIVASAN, IRS, JCIT. /DATE OF HEARING : 23-10-2018 ! /DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 24-10-2018 ITA NOS.653 TO 655-1464-65 /17 :- 2 -: 0 / O R D E R PER ABRAHAM P. GEORGE, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER APPEAL NOS. 653/CHNY/2017, 654/CHNY/2017, 1464/CHNY/2017 & 1465/CHNY/2017, ARE OF ASSESSEE M/ S. VBC JEWELLERY DIRECTED AGAINST ORDERS DATED 30.12.2016 AND 31.03.2017 OF LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS)-2, CHENNAI . APPEAL NO. 655/CHNY/2007 IS OF THE ASSESSEE M/S. VBC JEW ELLERS, FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2009-10 IS DIRECTED AGAINST AN ORDE R DATED 30.12.2016 OF LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPE ALS)-2, CHENNAI. 2. FACTS RELATING TO THESE APPEALS LIE IN A SHORT C OMPASS. BOTH THE ASSESSEES WERE ENGAGED IN JEWELLERY BUSINESS. PURSUANT TO A SEARCH CONDUCTED IN THE PREMISES OF ONE M/S. BHANWA RLAL JAIN GROUP ON 03.10.2014, REVENUE WAS HAVING INFORMATION THAT ONE SHRI. BHANWARLAL JAIN ALONGWITH SHRI. RAJAN BHANWARLAL J AIN AND SHRI. MANESH BAHNWARIAL JAIN WERE RUNNING A NUMBER OF DUM MY CONCERNS AND COMPANIES, WHICH WERE CONTROLLED BY THEM AND SU CH CONCERNS/COMPANIES WERE PROVIDING ACCOMMODATION EN TRIES IN THE NATURE OF LOANS, ADVANCES AND SALES TO VARIOUS PAR TIES, AGAINST COMMISSION. IT SEEMS INVESTIGATION WING OF THE DEP ARTMENT EXAMINED THE DIRECTORS/PARTNERS/ PROPRIETORS OF SUCH CONCERN S AND COMPANIES CONTROLLED BY BHANWARLAL JAIN AND FAMILY. AS PER TH E INVESTIGATION WING BANK ACCOUNTS OF THESE CONCERNS WERE MANAGED BY SHR I. BHANWARLAL ITA NOS.653 TO 655-1464-65 /17 :- 3 -: JAIN, SHRI. RAJAN BHANWARLAL JAIN AND SHRI. MANESH BAHNWARIAL JAIN. FURTHER, AS PER SUCH REPORTS, EVIDENCE COMING OUT OF THE RECORDS PROVED THAT THE ABOVE GROUP WAS PROVIDING ACCOMMODA TION ENTRIES IN THE NATURE OF BOGUS PURCHASES AND BOGUS LOANS THROU GH SEVENTY BENAMI CONCERNS. IT SEEMS SUCH BENAMI CONCERNS IN CLUDED ONE M/S. MOHIT ENTERPRISES, M/S. MAAN DIAMONDS, M/S.RAJAN DI AMONDS AND M/S. MARVIN ENTERPRISES WHICH WERE ALL LOCATED IN SURAT . ASSESSEE M/S. VBC JEWELLERY HAD CLAIMED PURCHASES OF E 3,90,780/- FROM M/S. RAJAN DIAMONDS DURING THE PREVIOUS YEAR RELEVANT TO ASSES SMENT YEAR 2007- 08, E6,52,300/- FROM M/S. MOHIT ENTERPRISES DURING THE PREVIOUS YEAR RELEVANT TO ASSESSMENT YEAR 2008-09, E19,58,551/- F ROM M/S. MOHIT ENTERPRISES DURING THE PREVIOUS YEAR RELEVANT TO AS SESSMENT YEAR 2009-10 AND E23,42,050/- FROM M/S. MAAN DIAMONDS D URING THE PREVIOUS YEAR RELEVANT TO ASSESSMENT YEAR 2011-12. ASSESSEE M/S. VBC JEWELLERS HAD CLAIMED PURCHASES OF DIAMOND WORT H E2,72,320/- FROM ONE M/S. MARVIN ENTERPRISES DURING THE PREVIOU S YEAR RELEVANT TO ASSESSMENT YEAR 2009-2010. 3. LD. ASSESSING OFFICER WAS OF THE OPINION THAT INVES TIGATION DONE BY THE DEPARTMENT CLEARLY INDICATED THE ABOVE PURCHASES TO BE BOGUS. ASSESSEES WERE PUT ON NOTICE. REPLY OF THE ASSESSEES WERE THAT THE PURCHASES WERE SUPPORTED BY PROPER INVOICE S AND DELIVERY OF THE ITEMS RECORDED IN ITS STOCK REGISTER. AS PER T HE ASSESSEES, THEY ITA NOS.653 TO 655-1464-65 /17 :- 4 -: HAD RECEIVED THE MATERIAL AND EFFECTED SALES THERE FROM. ASSESSEE ALSO POINTED OUT THAT THE PAYMENTS WERE EFFECTED THROUGH BANK AND SUPPLIERS HAD BOTH GST AND TIN. THUS, AS PER THE A SSESSEES, PURCHASES WERE NOT BOGUS, BUT TRUE AND GENUINE. 4. LD. ASSESSING OFFICER THEREUPON REQUIRED THE ASSES SEE TO PRODUCE THE INTERMEDIARIES THROUGH WHOM THE PURCHA SES WERE EFFECTED. ASSESSEES THEREUPON INTIMATED THAT INTE RMEDIARIES WERE NOT TRACEABLE DUE TO LAPSE OF TIME. LD. ASSESSING OFFI CER THEN ISSUED SHOW CAUSE NOTICES TO THE ASSESSEES, REQUIRING IT T O EXPLAIN WHY 25% OF THE UNVERIFIABLE PURCHASES SHOULD NOT BE CONSIDE RED AS UNEXPLAINED INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE. ASSESSEES REPLIED THAT THE GROSS PROFIT EARNED BY THEM FROM THEIR TRADING NEVER EXCEEDED 3% AND TH EREFORE ESTIMATION OF 25% OF THE PURCHASES WAS NOT JUSTIFIE D. ASSESSEES ALSO RELIED ON A JUDGMENT OF HONBLE GUJARAT HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF SANJAY OIL CAKE INDUSTRIES VS. CIT, 316 ITR 274 , FOR ITS CONTENTION THAT ADDITIONAL PROFIT IN EXCESS OF 5%COULD NOT BE ASSESSED. 5. HOWEVER, LD. ASSESSING OFFICER WAS NOT IMPRESSED BY THE ABOVE REPLY GIVEN BY THE ASSESSEE. ACCORDING TO HI M, ASSESSEES COULD NOT PROVE THE GENUINENESS OF THE PURCHASES NOR PRO DUCE INTERMEDIARIES THROUGH WHOM THE PURCHASES WERE MA DE. FURTHER, ACCORDING TO HIM, STATEMENTS RECORDED FROM VARIOUS PERSONS OF M/S. ITA NOS.653 TO 655-1464-65 /17 :- 5 -: BHANWARLAL JAIN GROUP CLEARLY PROVED THAT THEY WERE ISSUING BOGUS SALES BILLS FOR ACCOMMODATION ENTRIES AND THE ASSES SEES WERE ALSO BENEFICIARIES OF SUCH ACCOMMODATION ENTRIES. HE MA DE AN ADDITION OF 25% OF WHAT WAS CONSIDERED BY HIM UNVERIFIABLE PUR CHASES. APART FROM THIS, LD. ASSESSING OFFICER ALSO MADE AN ADDI TION U/S.69C OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 (IN SHORT THE ACT) ESTIMAT ING A COMMISSION OF E5,000/- TO HAVE BEEN PAID FOR EACH OF THE ACCOMM ODATION BILL. SUMMARY OF THE ADDITIONS MADE FOR THE IMPUGNED ASSE SSMENT YEARS WERE AS UNDER:- ITA ASSESSEE A.Y. PURCHASES DISBELIEVED ADDITION OF 25% ADDITION FOR COMMISSION U/S.69C 653/CHNY/17 VBC JEWELLERY 2009 - 10 M/S. MOHIT ENTERPRISES, SURAT E19,58,551/- 4,89,638/ - 10,000/ - 654/CHNY/17 VBC JEWELLERY 2011 - 12 M/S. MAAN DIAMONDS, SURAT, E23,42,050/- 5,85,513/ - 5,000/ - 1465/CHNY/17 VBC JEWELLERY 2008 - 09 M/S. MOHIT ENTERPRISES, SURAT E6,52,300/- 1,63,075/ - 5,000/ - 1464/CHNY/17 VBC JEWELLERY 2007 - 08 M/S. RAJAN DIAMONDS, SURAT E3,90,780/- 97,695/ - 5,000/ - 655/CHNY/17 VBC JEW ELLERS 2009 - 10 M/S. MARVIN ENTERPRISES, SURAT E2,72,320/- 68,080 5,000/ - 6. AGGRIEVED, BOTH THE ASSESSEES MOVED IN APPEAL BEF ORE LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS). LD. COMMISSI ONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) HOWEVER CONFIRMED THE ADDITION MADE B Y THE LD. ITA NOS.653 TO 655-1464-65 /17 :- 6 -: ASSESSING OFFICER OBSERVING THAT THERE WERE MATERIA L EVIDENCE ON RECORD FOR CONSIDERING THE PURCHASES CLAIMED BY TH E ASSESSEES AS BOGUS. FURTHER, ACCORDING TO HIM, JUDGMENT OF HON BLE GUJARAT HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF SANJAY OIL CAKE INDUSTRIES (SU PRA) SUPPORTED THE ADDITION MADE BY THE LD. ASSESSING OFFICER. 7. NOW BEFORE US, LD. AUTHORISED REPRESENTATIVE STRONG LY ASSAILING THE ORDERS OF THE LOWER AUTHORITIES SUBMI TTED THAT GROSS PROFIT RETURNED BY THE ASSESSEES FOR THE IMPUGNED ASSESS MENT YEARS VARIED BETWEEN 8.91% TO 20.88%. ACCORDING TO HIM, EVEN IF 25% MARKUP WAS PRESUMED ON THE ALLEGED UNVERIFIED PURCHASES, ADDITION SHOULD BE RESTRICTED TO DIFFERENCE BETWEEN GROSS PROFIT RA TE DECLARED BY THE ASSESSEE AND ADOPTED PERCENTAGE OF 25. IN SUPPORT OF THE ABOVE, LD. AUTHORISED REPRESENTATIVE PLACED RELIANCE ON THE FO LLOWING TABLE. VBC JEWELLERY ASST. YEAR UNVERIFIED PURCHASES GROSS PROFIT (DECLARED) DEEMED SALE (WITH MARKUP OF 25%) FURTHER ADDITION (%) ADDITION TO BE MADE AS PER JAIPUR ITAT DECISION (E) ADDITION MADE BY ASSESSING OFFICER (E) 2007 - 07 3,90,780 20.47% 5,21,040 5.00% 26,052 97,695 2008 - 09 6,52,300 18.91% 8,69,733 5.00% 43,487 1,63,075 2009 - 10 19,58,551 21.16% 26,11,401 5.00% 1,30,570 4,89,638 2011 - 12 23,42,050 20.88% 31,22,733 5.00% 1,56,137 5,85,513 3,56,245 13,35,920 ITA NOS.653 TO 655-1464-65 /17 :- 7 -: VBC JEWELLER S ASST. YEAR UNVERIFIED PURCHASES GROSS PROFIT (DECLARED) DEEMED SALE (WITH MARKUP OF 25%) FURTHER ADDITION (%) ADDITION TO BE MADE AS PER JAIPUR ITAT DECISION (E) ADDITION MADE BY ASSESSING OFFICER (E) 2009 - 10 2,72,320 20.34% 3,63,093 5.00% 18,155 68,080 18,155 68,080 ACCORDING TO HIM, JUDGMENT OF HONBLE GUJARAT HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF SANJAY OIL CAKE INDUSTRIES (SUPRA) WAS ONE WHERE ACCOUNT PAYEE CHEQUES ISSUED BY THE ASSESSEE WERE DEPOSITED IN BA NK ACCOUNT WHICH WERE OSTENSIBLY IN THE NAME OF APPARENT SELLERS AND ENTIRE AMOUNT WERE WITHDRAWN BY BEARER CHEQUES WITH NO TRACE OR I DENTITY OF THE PERSON WITHDRAWING THE AMOUNT FROM THE BANK. AS AGA INST THIS, AS PER THE LD. AUTHORISED REPRESENTATIVE, IN A CASE SIM ILAR TO THAT OF THE ASSESSEE, DECIDED BY A CO-ORDINATE BENCH VIZ SHEETAL V. BHAT VS. ACIT (IN ITA NO.272/MDS/2017, DATED 28.06.2017), IT WAS HELD THAT LD. ASSESSING OFFICER, HAVING NOT TAKEN THE STEPS SUBSE QUENT TO ISSUE OF NOTICE U/S.133(6) OF THE ACT, DISALLOWANCE OF PURCH ASES AND ADDITIONS MADE ON PRESUMPTIONS COULD NOT BE UPHELD. RELIANCE WAS ALSO PLACED ON A DECISION OF MUMBAI BENCH OF THE TRIBUNAL IN TH E CASE OF M /S. RALF JEMS PVT. LTD VS. ITO (ITA NOS.3707 AND 3761 /MUM/2 016, DATED 11.12.2017 ). AS PER THE LD. AUTHORISED REPRESENTATIVE IN THE CASE CONSIDERED BY THE MUMBAI BENCH, ADDITION WAS BASED ON A SEARCH ITA NOS.653 TO 655-1464-65 /17 :- 8 -: CONDUCTED IN THE VERY SAME M/S. BHANWARLAL JAIN GRO UP, FOR ALLEGED ACCOMMODATION ENTRIES. CONTENTION OF THE LD. AUTHO RISED REPRESENTATIVE WAS THAT SALES HAVING NOT BEEN DOUBT ED, PURCHASES COULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISBELIEVED. ACCORDING TO HIM, MUMBAI BENCH IN THE CASE OF M/S. RALF JEMS PVT. LTD (SUPRA) HAD HEL D THAT 6% DISALLOWANCES OF ALLEGED BOGUS PURCHASES DONE BY LD . COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) WAS APPROPRIATE. 8. VIZ-A-VIZ, COMMISSION PAYMENT, LD. AUTHORISED REPRESENTATIVE SUBMITTED THAT THERE WAS NO CLAIM M ADE BY THE ASSESSEE FOR ANY COMMISSION. ADDITION WAS MADE, A CCORDING TO HIM PURELY BASED ON PRESUMPTION. IN ANY CASE, ACCORDIN G TO HIM, ONLY THE PROFIT MARGIN EMBEDDED IN THE ALLEGED BOGUS PURCHA SE COULD BE CONSIDERED FOR ADDITION BY VIRTUE OF JUDGMENT OF HO NBLE GUJARAT HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. BHOLANATH POLY FAB PVT. LTD (2013) 355 ITR 290. 9. PER CONTRA, LD. DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE STRONG LY SUPPORTING THE ORDERS OF THE LOWER AUTHORITIES SUBMITTED THAT LOWER AUTHORITIES HAD RIGHTLY RELIED ON THE JUDGMENT OF H ONBLE GUJARAT HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF SANJAY OIL CAKE INDUSTRIES (SU PRA). ACCORDING TO HIM, ASSESSEE COULD NOT PROVE THE PURCHASES AND INV ESTIGATION WING OF ITA NOS.653 TO 655-1464-65 /17 :- 9 -: THE DEPARTMENT HAD CLEARLY ESTABLISHED THAT ACCOMM ODATION ENTRIES WERE PROVIDED BY M/S BHANWARLAL JAIN GROUP THROUGH M/S. MOHIT ENTERPRISES, M/S. MAAN DIAMONDS, M/S.RAJAN DIAMONDS AND M/S. MARVIN ENTERPRISES TO MANY CONCERNS INCLUDING THE A SSESSEES. 10. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS AND PERUSE D THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW. PURCHASES MADE B Y THE ASSESSEES, FROM M/S. MOHIT ENTERPRISES, M/S. MAAN DIAMONDS, M/ S.RAJAN DIAMONDS AND M/S. MARVIN ENTERPRISES WERE CONSIDERE D AS BOGUS, BASED ON INVESTIGATION DONE BY THE DEPARTMENT ON A GROUP HEADED BY ONE SHRI. BHANWARLAL JAIN PURSUANT TO A SEARCH CON DUCTED IN THEIR PREMISES ON 03.10.2014. WHAT WE FIND IS THAT REVENU E HAD RELIED ON OATH STATEMENTS TAKEN FROM NUMBER OF PERSONS CONNEC TED TO THE CONCERNS RUN BY SHRI. BHANWARLAL JAIN FOR COMING TO A CONCLUSION THAT THE CONCERNS RUN BY SHRI. BHANWARLAL JAIN AND FAMIL Y, WERE PROVIDING ACCOMMODATION ENTRIES IN THE NATURE OF BOGUS PURCHA SES. WE ALSO FIND THAT THESE STATEMENTS AND THE INVESTIGATION REPORTS RELIED ON BY THE LD. ASSESSING OFFICER, WERE NEVER PUT TO THE ASSESSEES, DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS. LD. ASSESSING OFFICER HA D RELIED ON SUCH STATEMENTS AND REPORTS FOR RESORTING TO A BEST OF JUDGMENT ASSESSMENT AND MADE AN ADDITION OF 25%, OF WHAT WAS CONSIDERED BY HIM AS BOGUS PURCHASES. IT IS NOT DISPUTED THAT AS SESSEES HAD ITA NOS.653 TO 655-1464-65 /17 :- 10 -: PRODUCED INVOICES FROM THE CONCERNED VENDORS AND SAID INVOICES CARRIED TIN AS WELL AS GST DETAILS OF THE VENDORS. IT IS ALSO NOT DISPUTED THAT THE RECEIPT OF THE MATERIAL WERE PROP ERLY RECORDED BY THE ASSESSEES IN THEIR STOCK REGISTERS. THE SALES EFFEC TED BY THE ASSESSEES WAS NEVER DISBELIEVED. WHEN THE SALES ARE ACCEPTED, WE CANNOT SAY THAT THERE WERE NO CORRESPONDING PURCHASES. NEVERT HELESS, IT IS TRUE THAT ASSESSEE DESPITE CLAIMING THE PURCHASES TO HAV E BEEN EFFECTED THROUGH SOME INTERMEDIARIES, WERE UNABLE TO PRODUCE THE INTERMEDIARIES OR FILE CONFIRMATIONS FROM THEM. H ENCE, WE CANNOT SAY THAT ASSESSEE HAD MADE ALL NECESSARY EFFORTS FOR PR OVING THE PURCHASES CLAIMED TO HAVE BEEN MADE FROM THE PARTI ES MENTIONED IN THE TABLE ABOVE, BEYOND PREPONDERANCE OF PROBABILIT Y. A SIMILAR CASE, WHERE AN ADDITION WAS MADE DISBELIEVING PURCHASES, BASED ON SEARCH OPERATIONS CONDUCTED IN M/S. BHANWARLAL JAIN GROUP, HAD COME UP BEFORE THE MUMBAI BENCH OF THE TRIBUNAL IN ITA NOS .3707 & 3761/MUM/2016, DATED 11.12.2017). WHAT WAS HELD BY THE MUMBAI BENCH AT PARAS 9 & 10 ARE REPRODUCED HEREUNDER:- 9. WE HAVE HEARD BOTH THE COUNSEL AND PERUSED THE RECORD. AS REGARDS THE REOPENING, WE FIND THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) HAS PASSED AN APPOSITE ORDER. THE REOPENING HAS BEEN DONE ON THE BASIS OF COGENT INFORMATION REGARDING THE ASSESSEE DEALING WITH HAWALA OPERATORS. THE CASE LAWS REFERR ED BY THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) ARE GERMANE AND SUPPORT THE VALIDITY OF REOPENING IN TH IS CASE. ITA NOS.653 TO 655-1464-65 /17 :- 11 -: 10. AS REGARDS THE MERITS OF THE CASE, FACTS OF TH E CASE INDICATE THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS ENGAGED INTO OBTAINING BOGUS PURCHASE BILLS. SINCE, SALES HAVE N OT BEEN DOUBTED; ENTIRE DISALLOWANCE OF PURCHASE IS NO T SUSTAINABLE IN LIGHT OF HON'BLE JURISDICTIONAL HIG H COURT DECISION IN THE CASE OF NIKUNJ ENTERPRISES. W E FURTHER NOTE THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS ALSO HI MSELF NOT DONE ANY INVESTIGATION AND ENQUIRY. THE ASSESSE E'S REQUEST FOR CROSS EXAMINATION HAS NOT BEEN ENTERTAI NED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. IN THESE CIRCUMSTANCES, 6% DISALLOWANCE OF BOGUS PURCHASE SUSTAINED BY THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) IS APPROPRIATE AND DOES NOT NEED ANY INTERFERENCE ON OUR PART. BOT H THE ID. COUNSEL ALSO FAIRLY AGREED TO THIS PROPOSITION . ASSESSEES HAVE ALSO SUBMITTED THAT ITS GROSS PROFIT INCLUDING THAT OF PURCHASES CONSIDERED BY THE LOWER AUTHORITIES AS BO GUS, CAME TO 8.91% TO 20.88% FOR THE IMPUGNED ASSESSMENT YEARS. EVEN IF WE ACCEPT THE CONTENTION OF THE REVENUE THAT 25% MARK UP WAS JUSTIFIED BASED ON THE JUDGMENT OF GUJARAT HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF SANJAY OIL CAKE INDUSTRIES (SUPRA), WHAT COULD AT THE BEST BE ADDED IS ONLY THE SHORTFALL BETWEEN DECLARED GROSS PROFIT AND THE ES TIMATED GROSS PROFIT OF 25%, AND SUCH SHORTFALL FELL WITHIN THE RANGE OF 5 TO 6%. IN SUCH CIRCUMSTANCES, IN ORDER TO GIVE A QUIETUS TO THE MATTER, WE ARE INCLINED TO FOLLOW THE DECISION OF MUMBAI BENCH IN THE CASE OF M/S. RALF JEMS PVT. LTD (SUPRA). ADDITION THAT ARE TO BE M ADE IS FIXED AT 6%, OF WHAT IS CONSIDERED AS VALUE OF THE ALLEGED BOGUS PURCHASES AND NOTHING MORE. WE DIRECT THE LD. ASSESSING OFFICER TO RECALCULATE THE ADDITION ACCORDINGLY. ITA NOS.653 TO 655-1464-65 /17 :- 12 -: 11. VIZ--VIZ, ALLEGED COMMISSION, IN THE FIRST PLACE, ASSESSEES HAD NOT CLAIMED ANY COMMISSION PAYMENT. ESTIMATE OF E5,000/- PER BILL WAS BASED ON PURE SURMISES. SUCH ADDITIONS ARE THE REFORE DELETED. 12. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEALS OF THE ASSESSEES ARE PAR TLY ALLOWED. ORDER PRONOUNCED ON WEDNESDAY, THE 24TH DAY OF O CTOBER, 2018, AT CHENNAI. SD/- SD/- ( ' # ' $ . %& ) ( DUVVURU RL REDDY ) ( / JUDICIAL MEMBER ( . ) (ABRAHAM P. GEORGE) / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER '# / CHENNAI $% / DATED: 24 TH OCTOBER, 2018. KV %& '()( / COPY TO: 1 . / APPELLANT 3. *+, / CIT(A) 5. (-. / / DR 2. / RESPONDENT 4. * / CIT 6. .01 / GF