Ajayan Gangadharan, Nashik V. Income-tax Officer, Nashik

ITA 1994/PUN/2016

• Counselvise Citation: [2018] 119 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 4800 (ITAT-PUNE)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 1 month(s) 15 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 22-10-2018
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Assessment Year: 2009-2010
• Appeal Filed On: 06-09-2016
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: RAJESH GAWLI
• Keywords: Bogus purchase; Opportunity of cross examination
• Section: 143(3); 142(1); 133(6); 148

Judgement Text

] IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE BENCH A, PUNE BEFORE MS. SUSHMA CHOWLA, JM AND SHRI ANIL CHATURVEDI, AM . / ITA NOS.1994 TO 1996/PUN/2016 / ASSESSMENT YEARS : 2009-10 TO 2011-12 SHRI AJAYAN GANGADHARAN, PROP., M/S. AATHIRA ENGINEERING WORKS, C/O.ARUNA RAJENDRA SHIRSATH, FLAT NO.3, AMRDU TIRDH APARTMENT, SR.NO.10/3A/1, KAMATHWADA, NASHIK. PAN : AGHPG4292P. . / APPELLANT V/S THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 1 (2), NASHIK. . / RESPONDENT . / ITA NOS.2202 TO 2204/PUN/2016 / ASSESSMENT YEARS : 2009-10 TO 2011-12 THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 1 (2), NASHIK. . / APPELLANT V/S SHRI AJAYAN GANGADHARAN, PROP., M/S. AATHIRA ENGINEERING WORKS, C/O.ARUNA RAJENDRA SHIRSATH, FLAT NO.3, AMRDU TIRDH APARTMENT, SR.NO.10/3A/1, KAMATHWADA, NASHIK. PAN : AGHPG4292P. . / RESPONDENT ASSESSEE BY : SHRI SANKET JOSHI. REVENUE BY : SHRI RAJESH GAWLI. / ORDER PER ANIL CHATURVEDI, AM : 1. THESE CROSS-APPEALS FILED BY ASSESSEE AND REVENUE E MANATE OUT OF CONSOLIDATED ORDER OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (A) 1, NASHIK DT.13.07.2016 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEARS 2009-10 TO 2011-12. / DATE OF HEARING : 04.10.2018. / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT: 22.10.2018 2 2 . BEFORE US, BOTH THE PARTIES SUBMITTED THAT THE GROUNDS RAISED IN THE APPEALS OF ASSESSEE AND REVENUE ARE INTER-CONNECTE D AND IDENTICAL EXCEPT FOR THE YEAR, THE AMOUNTS INVOLVED AND THEREFORE THEY HAVE COMMON SUBMISSIONS TO MAKE. IN VIEW OF THE AFORESAID SUBM ISSIONS, WE FOR THE PURPOSE OF CONVENIENCE, PROCEED TO DISPOSE OF THE APPEALS BY A CONSOLIDATED ORDER BUT HOWEVER PROCEED WITH NARRATING T HE FACTS IN ITA NO.1994/PUN/2016 FOR A.Y. 2009-10. 3. THE RELEVANT FACTS AS CULLED OUT FROM THE MATERIAL ON RE CORD ARE AS UNDER :- ASSESSEE IS AN INDIVIDUAL AND PROPRIETOR OF M/S AATHIRA ENGINEERING WORKS, NASHIK. ASSESSEE ELECTRONICALLY FILED HIS RETURN OF INCOME FOR A.Y. 2009-10 ON 19.09.2009 DECLARING TOTAL INCOM E OF RS.5,06,370/-. ON RECEIPT OF CERTAIN INFORMATION FROM MAHAR ASHTRA SALES TAX DEPARTMENT REGARDING ASSESSEES ENTERING INTO HAWALA TRANSACTIONS AGGREGATING TO RS.66,88,471/- WITH VARIOUS P ARTIES LISTED AT PAGE 2 OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER, NOTICE U/S 148 OF T HE ACT WAS ISSUED. SUBSEQUENTLY, NOTICE U/S 143(2) AND 142(1) OF THE AC T DT.29.04.2014 ALONG WITH QUESTIONNAIRE WERE ISSUED. THEREA FTER, ASSESSMENT WAS FRAMED U/S 143(3) R.W.S. 147 OF THE ACT VIDE ORDER DT.24.03.2015 AND THE TOTAL INCOME WAS DETERMINED AT RS. 71,94,840/- INTER-ALIA BY MAKING ADDITION OF RS.66,88,471/- BEING BOGUS P URCHASES. AGGRIEVED BY THE ORDER OF AO, ASSESSEE CARRIED THE MATT ER BEFORE LD.CIT(A)-1, NASHIK, WHO VIDE ORDER DT.13.07.2016 (IN APPEAL NO.NSK/CIT(A)-1/221 TO 223/2015-16) GRANTED PARTIAL RE LIEF TO THE ASSESSEE. AGGRIEVED BY THE ORDER OF LD.CIT(A) AND REVE NUE ARE NOW IN APPEAL BEFORE US. THE ASSESSEE HAS RAISED THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS : 3 1. THE LEARNED CIT(A) ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE D ISALLOWANCE OF RS.16 , 72,118/- OUT OF THE TOTAL DISALLO W ANCE OF RS.66,88 , 471/- MADE BY THE A.O. IN RESPECT OF PURCHASES MADE FROM ALLEGED HAWALA PARTIES ON THE BASIS OF INFORMATION OBTAINED FROM MAHARASHTRA SALES TAX DEPT . 2. THE LEARNED CIT(A) ERRED IN HOLDING THAT THE 2 5% OF THE AMOUNT OF PURCHASES MADE FROM THE ALLEGED HAWALA PARTIES WAS TO BE DISALLOWED WITHOUT APPRECIATING THAT NO SUCH DISALL OWANCE WAS WARRANTED ON FACTS OF THE CASE. 3. THE LEARNED CIT(A) FAILED TO APPRECIATE THAT- A. THE ENTIRE PURCHASES MADE BY THE ASSESSEE FROM THE ABO V E PARTIES WERE SUPPORTED BY TAX INVOICES AND OTHER DO CUMENTARY EVIDENCES AND HENCE, THERE WAS NO REASON TO DOUBT T HE GENUINENESS OF THE SAID PURCHASES. B. THE PAYMENTS TO THE SAID PARTIES WERE MADE THROUGH BANK CHEQUES AND THE A.O. HAD NOT BROUGHT ANY EVIDENCE O N RECORD TO SHO W THAT THE PAYMENTS MADE BY THE ASSESSEE TO THESE P A RTIES WERE WITHDRAWN BY IT AND RETURNED TO THE ASSESSEE I N CASH AND HENCE, IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY CONTRARY EVIDENCE , THERE WAS NO REASON TO DOUBT THE GENUINENESS OF THE PA Y MENTS MADE BY THE ASSESSEE TO THESE PARTIES. 4. THE LEARNED CIT(A) OUGHT TO HAVE APPRECIATED THAT- A. THE ABOVE SUPPLIERS HAD NOT PAID VAT AND HENCE , THEY HAD LEFT THEIR REGISTERED PREMISES AND HENCE, THE ADDITION M ADE BY IGNORING THE VARIOUS DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCES FURNISHE D BY THE ASSESSEE WAS NOT JUSTIFIED MERELY BECAUSE THE ASSES SEE WAS NOT ABLE TO PRODUCE THESE PARTIES. B. THE A.O. HAD HIMSELF ADMITTED IN THE ASST . ORDER THAT HE WAS NOT ABLE TO LOCATE THE ABOVE ALLEGED HAWALA PARTIES AND THUS, THE A.O. WAS IN NO POSITION TO GRANT THE OPPORTUNITY OF CROSS EXAMINATION OF THESE PARTIES TO THE ASSESSEE AND HE NCE, IN VIEW OF THE RATIO LAID DOWN BY HON'BLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF ANDAMAN TIMBER INDUSTRIES V. CCE [CIVIL APPEAL NO . 4228 / 2006 DATED02.09.2015], THE ADDITION MADE SOLELY ON THE BASIS OF STATEMENT OF SUCH SUPPLIERS RECORDED A T THE BACK OF THE ASSESSEE WAS NOT JUSTIFIED AT ALL . 5. WITHOUT PREJUDICE, THE ASSESSEE SUBMITS THAT THE DI SALLOWANCE MADE @ 25% OF THE AMOUNT OF PURCHASES IS VERY HIGH AND T HE SAME MAY BE RESTRICTED TO A REASONABLE LEVEL CONSIDERING THE FACTS OF THE CASE. 4. SIMILAR GROUNDS HAVE BEEN RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE IN ITA NOS.1995 AND 1996/PUN/2016 FOR A.Y. 2010-11 AND 2011-12 , RESPECTIVELY. 4 5. ON THE OTHER HAND, THE GROUNDS RAISED BY THE REVE NUE IN ITA NO.2202/PUN/2016 FOR A.Y. 2009-10 READS AS UNDER : I. WHETHER ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, THE LD. CIT(A)-1, NASHIK WAS JUSTIFIED IN DELETING THE ADDI TION OF RS.50,16,353/- FOR A.Y. 2009-10 RS. 81,75,202/- FOR A.Y. 2010-11 A ND RS. 29,37,904/- FOR A.Y. 2011-12 ON ACCOUNT OF ALLEGED BOGUS PURCHA SES FROM HAWALA DEALERS / PARTIES? II) WHETHER ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE C ASE THE CIT(A) WAS JUSTIFIED IN DELETING THE PURCHASES TREATED AS BOGU S WHEN THE APPELLANT HAD NOT BEEN ABLE TO PRODUCE THE CERTAIN PARTIES FR OM WHOM PURCHASES WERE MADE WHEN LETTERS SENT TO THE PARTIES WERE RET URNED UNDELIVERED OR THE PARTIES DID NOT RESPOND? III) WHETHER THE LD. CIT(A) SHOULD HAVE CONSIDERED THE FACT THAT THE ONUS WAS ON THE ASSESSEE TO GET THE PURCHASES VERIFIED W HEN REQUIRED TO DO SO ESPECIALLY WHEN SUCH PURCHASES WERE VERY SUBSTANTIA L IN AMOUNT, IN SOME YEARS ROUGHLY ABOUT 50% OF THE TOTAL PURCHASES ? IV) WHETHER THE LD CIT(A) ERRED IN ASSUMING THAT TH E PURCHASES WERE ONLY INFLATED WHEN IT WAS CLEAR FROM THE CONDUCT OF THE ASSESSEE, THE PARTIES FOUND MISSING AND RESULTS OF THE INVESTIGATION OF A NOTHER GOVT, DEPARTMENT (SALES TAX), THAT THE PURCHASES COULD NO T BE PROVED AS GENUINE AND THEREFORE THE DISALLOWANCE BY THE AO WA S JUSTIFIED? V) WHETHER THE LD CIT(A) ERRED IN PRESUMING THAT SI MPLY BECAUSE NO ADDITION WAS MADE IN CASE OF SALES, IT WAS ACCEPTED AS GENUINE AND FURTHER ASSUMING THAT THEREBY PURCHASES SHOULD BE G ENUINE? VI) WHETHER THE LD. CIT(A) ERRED IN ACCEPTING THE A FFIDAVITS FROM SUPPLIERS WITHOUT ANY EXPLANATION FROM THE ASSESSEE WHY THE S UPPLIERS COULD NOT APPEAR BEFORE THE AO WHEN THEY WERE CALLED FOR EXAM INATION, SUBSEQUENTLY AND DETAILS SUCH AS COPIES OF ACCOUNTS , BANK TRANSACTIONS WERE NOT PRODUCED? VII) THE APPELLANT PRAYS THAT THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A)-1, NASHIK MAY PLEASE BE CANCELLED AND THE ORDER OF ASSESSING OFFI CE MAY PLEASE BE RESTORED. 6. SIMILAR GROUNDS HAVE BEEN RAISED BY THE REVENUE IN IT A NOS.2203 & 2204/PUN/2016 FOR A.Y. 2010-11 AND 2011-12, RESPECTIVELY. 7. THOUGH, ASSESSEE AND REVENUE RAISED VARIOUS GROUNDS BUT THE SOLE CONTROVERSY IS WITH RESPECT TO THE RELIEF GRANTED BY LD.CIT(A) ON THE ADDITION MADE BY AO ON ACCOUNT OF BOGUS PURCHASES. 5 8. AO NOTED THAT ASSESSEE HAD MADE PURCHASES AGGREGA TING TO RS.66,88,471/- FROM VARIOUS PARTIES (LISTED AT PAGE 2 OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER). AO NOTED THAT SALES TAX DEPARTMENT ON THE BA SIS ON ENQUIRIES MADE AT THEIR END HAD CONCLUDED THE AFORESAID SUPPLIERS T O BE BOGUS. AO NOTED THAT TO VERIFY THE GENUINENESS OF PURCHASES M ADE BY ASSESSEE FROM THE AFORESAID PARTIES, NOTICES ISSUED U/S 133(6) OF THE ACT TO THE PARTIES FOR FURNISHING CERTAIN DETAILS WAS SENT BUT WERE RE TURNED BY THE POSTAL AUTHORITIES. AO NOTED THAT THOUGH ASSESSEE WAS G IVEN AN OPPORTUNITY AND ASKED TO PRODUCE THE RELEVANT PARTIES BUT ASSESSEE FAILED TO PRODUCE THE PARTIES BEFORE HIM. THE SUBMISSION OF THE ASSESS EE THAT THE PURCHASES WERE GENUINE WAS NOT FOUND ACCEPTA BLE TO AO. HE HELD THE AGGREGATE PURCHASES OF RS.66,88,471/- TO BE B OGUS AND MADE ITS ADDITION. AGGRIEVED BY THE ORDER OF AO, ASSESSEE CA RRIED THE MATTER BEFORE LD.CIT(A), WHO GRANTED PARTIAL RELIEF TO THE ASSESSEE BY UPHOLDING THE DISALLOWANCE TO THE EXTENT OF 25% OF BOGUS PURCHASES . AGGRIEVED BY THE ORDER OF LD.CIT(A), ASSESSEE AND REVENUE ARE NOW IN A PPEAL BEFORE US. ASSESSEE IS AGGRIEVED FOR UPHOLDING THE DISALLOWANCE T O THE EXTENT OF 25% AND REVENUE IS AGGRIEVED FOR THE RELIEF GRANTED BY LD.CIT(A). 9. BEFORE US, LD.A.R. REITERATED THE SUBMISSIONS MADE BEFORE AO AND LD.CIT(A) AND FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT ASSESSEE HAD ASKED THE AO TO GRANT CROSS-EXAMINATION OF THE PERSONS WHICH WAS THE BA SIS FOR PROPOSED ADDITION. HE SUBMITTED THAT AO DID NOT GRANT C ROSS- EXAMINATION OF THE ALLEGED BOGUS SUPPLIERS. HE FURTHER SUBM ITTED THAT THE ENTIRE SALES ARISING OUT OF BOGUS PURCHASES WERE ACC EPTED BY REVENUE AND THE SALES ARE SUPPORTED BY EVIDENCE OF CHA LLANS ETC. HE FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT THE PAYMENT FOR PURCHASES HAVE BEEN MADE BY BANKING CHANNELS. HE THEREFORE SUBMITTED THAT LD.CIT(A) H AS ERRED IN UPHOLDING DISALLOWANCE TO THE EXTENT OF 25%. HE FURTHER SU BMITTED THAT 6 ON IDENTICAL FACTS IN THE CASE OF MR. VISHNU VITTHALDAS GUJA RATHI IN ITA NO.533/PUN/2015 DT.18.08.2017, THE FAMILY MEMBERS OF ASSES SEE, THE CO-ORDINATE BENCH OF THE TRIBUNAL HAS UPHELD THE ADDITION TO THE EXTENT OF 10% OF THE TOTAL BOGUS PURCHASES. HE SUBMITTED THAT AS THE FACTS OF THE PRESENT CASE ARE IDENTICAL TO THE CASE OF VISHNU VITT HALDAS GUJARATHI, THE MATTER IN THE CASE OF ASSESSEE BE DECIDED SIMILARLY BY MAKING ADDITION OF 10% OF BOGUS PURCHASES. LD.D.R. ON THE OTHER HAND, SUPPORTED THE ORDER OF LOWER AUTHORITIES. 10. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND PERUSED THE MATERIAL ON RECORD. THE ISSUE IN THE PRESENT CASE IS WITH RESPECT TO MAKING OF ADDITION OF RS.66,88,471/- TO THE TOTAL INCOME OF THE ASSES SEE ON ACCOUNT OF BOGUS PURCHASES. WE FIND THAT AO IN THE ORDER HAS NOTED THAT ASSESSEE HAD FAILED TO ESTABLISH THE GENUINENESS OF T HE PURCHASES AMOUNTING TO RS.66,88,471/- AND THEREFORE AO TREATED T HE ENTIRE PURCHASES AS BOGUS PURCHASES AND DISALLOWED THE ENTIRE PURCHASES OF RS.66,88,471/- BY TREATING IT AS BOGUS. WHEN THE MATT ER WAS CARRIED BEFORE LD.CIT(A), LD.CIT(A) UPHELD THE DISALLOWANCE TO THE EX TENT OF 25% OF BOGUS PURCHASES. WE FIND THAT ON IDENTICAL FACTS, IN THE CASE OF MR. VISHNU VITTHALDAS GUJARATHI IN ITA NO.533/PUN/2015 FOR A.Y . 2010- 11, THE CO-ORDINATE BENCH OF THE TRIBUNAL HAS UPHELD THE ADDITION TO THE EXTENT OF 10% OF PURCHASES BY OBSERVING AS UNDER : 6. WE HAVE HEARD THE SUBMISSIONS MADE BY THE REPRES ENTATIVES OF RIVAL SIDES AND HAVE PERUSED THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIE S BELOW. THE ONLY ISSUE RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE IN APPEAL IS AGAINST C ONFIRMING OF ADDITION OF RS.7,54,883/- I.E. TO THE EXTENT OF 30% OF ALLEGED BOGUS PURCHASES. THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAD MADE ADDITION OF RS.25,49,609 /- ON ACCOUNT OF BOGUS PURCHASES. THE ASSESSEE HAD ALLEGEDLY PURCHAS ED GOODS FROM SHRI JAYESH M. MASHRU, PROPRIETOR M/S. PIONEER TRADING C OMPANY TO BE SUPPLIED TO MSETCL. SHRI JAYESH M. MASHRU IN HIS ST ATEMENT RECORDED U/S. 14 OF THE MAHARASHTRA VALUE ADDED TAX ACT, 200 2 DURING INVESTIGATION CONDUCTED BY SALES TAX DEPARTMENT ADM ITTED THAT HE HAS NOT DONE ANY BUSINESS OF SALES AND PURCHASE OF GOOD S IN THE SAID FIRM AND HAD ISSUED BOGUS SALES BILLS ON COMMISSION BASIS . AS PER THE 7 CONTENTIONS OF ASSESSEE, THE GOODS WERE TRANSPORTED BY M/S. SWASTIK TRANSPORT CO. THE ASSESSEE WAS ASKED TO FURNISH PRO OF OF TRANSPORTATION OF GOODS. THE ASSESSEE FILED COPIES OF LORRY RECEIP TS ISSUED BY THE TRANSPORTER. HOWEVER, TO FURTHER SUBSTANTIATE HIS C LAIM AND TO REBUT THE ALLEGATIONS LEVELED BY THE DEPARTMENT NO CONFIRMATI ON LETTERS EITHER FROM SHRI JAYESH M. MASHRU OR M/S. SWASTIK TRANSPORT CO . WERE FILED BY THE ASSESSEE. 7. IT IS AN UNDISPUTED FACT THAT M/S. PIONEER TRADI NG COMPANY IS A NOTIFIED HAWALA DEALER. A PERUSAL OF THE IMPUGNED O RDER SHOWS THAT SUPPLY OF GOODS TO MSETCL HAS NOT BEEN DISPUTED. AT THE SAME TIME THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT FURNISHED COGENT EVIDENCE TO SHOW TRAIL OF GOODS PURCHASED FROM M/S. PIONEER TRADING COMPANY. THE CO MMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) HAS OPINED THAT ASSESSEE MIGHT HAVE PURCHASED GOODS FROM GREY MARKET AND THEREAFTER SUPPLIED THE SAME TO MSETCL. WE FIND MERIT IN THE REASONING GIVEN BY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS). SO FAR AS THE OBJECTION RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE THAT ADDITION HAS BEEN MADE ON THE BASIS OF STATEMENT OF SHRI JAYESH M. MASHRU RECORDED AT THE BACK OF ASSESSEE AND NO OPPORTUNITY TO CROSS -EXAMINE WAS AFFORDED, WE FIND THAT COPY OF STATEMENT OF SHRI JA YESH M. MASHRU WAS PROVIDED TO THE ASSESSEE ON 13-03-2013. TO REBUT TH E SAID STATEMENT, ASSESSEE HAS FAILED TO FILE ANY CONFIRMATION LETTER FROM SHRI JAYESH M. MASHRU. 8. THE PUNE BENCH OF TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF M/S. C HHABI ELECTRICALS PVT. LTD. VS. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (SUPRA) HAD OCCASION TO DEAL WITH VARIOUS SET OF HAWALA PURCHASE CASES. THE TRIB UNAL WHILE DEALING WITH THE CASES WHERE STATEMENTS RECORDED BY THE SAL ES TAX DEPARTMENT WERE PROVIDED TO THE ASSESSEE AND THE ASSESSEE HAS BEEN ABLE TO ESTABLISH THAT THE GOODS WERE SUPPLIED, THE ADDITIO N WAS MADE BY ESTIMATING GP @ 10% OF THE ALLEGED HAWALA PURCHASES . THE RELEVANT EXTRACT OF THE FINDINGS OF TRIBUNAL ON THIS ISSUE A RE AS UNDER : V. ANOTHER SET OF CASES WHERE THE STATEMENTS RECORD ED BY THE SALES TAX DEPARTMENT HAVE BEEN HANDED OVER TO THE A SSESSEE AND THE COPIES OF SAME HAVE BEEN SUPPLIED TO THE ASSESS EE, THEN WHERE THE ASSESSEE ESTABLISHED THE CASE OF RECEIPT OF GOO DS AND ITS ONWARD TRANSMISSION, THEN THE FACTUM OF PURCHASES B Y THE ASSESSEE STANDS ESTABLISHED IN SUCH CIRCUMSTANCES. HOWEVER, ESTIMATION IS TO BE MADE IN THE HANDS OF ASSESSEE BE CAUSE OF PURCHASES FROM THE GREY MARKET AND FOLLOWING THE AB OVE SAID RATIO, ADDITION IS TO BE MADE BY ESTIMATING THE SAME @ 7 1 0% OF THE ALLEGED HAWALA PURCHASES, OVER AND ABOVE THE NET PR OFIT SHOWN BY THE ASSESSEE. TAKING INTO CONSIDERATION THE TOTALITY OF FACTS, WE ARE OF CONSIDERED OPINION THAT DISALLOWANCE @ 10% OF THE TOTAL BOGUS PURCHASES WOULD MEET THE ENDS OF JUSTICE. WE DIRECT AND HOLD, ACCORDINGL Y. BEFORE US, REVENUE HAS NOT POINTED OUT ANY DISTINGUISHING FEATURE IN THE FACTS OF THE PRESENT CASE OF ASSESSEE AND THAT O F VISHNU VITTHALDAS GUJARATHI (SUPRA). WE THEREFORE RELYING ON THE DECISION OF CO-ORDINATE BENCH OF THE TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF VISHNU VITTHALDAS GUJ ARATHI 8 (SUPRA), AND FOR SIMILAR REASONS UPHOLD THE ADDITION TO THE EXTENT OF 10% OF SUCH BOGUS PURCHASES. WE THUS DIRECT ACCORDINGLY . THUS, THE GROUND OF THE ASSESSEE IS PARTLY ALLOWED AND THE AP PEAL OF REVENUE IS DISMISSED. 11. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IN ITA NO.1994/PUN/2016 FOR A.Y. 2009-10 IS PARTLY ALLOWED AND THE APPEAL OF REVENUE IN ITA NO.2202/PUN/2016 IS DISMIS SED. 12. NOW WE TAKE UP ASSESSEES APPEALS IN ITA NOS.1995 & 1996/PUN/2016 AND REVENUES APPEALS IN ITA NOS.2203 & 2204/PUN/2016 FOR A.YS. 2010-11 AND 2011-12. 13. AS FAR AS THE GROUNDS RAISED IN APPEALS OF ASSESSEE AND REVENUE ARE CONCERNED, IN VIEW OF THE SUBMISSIONS OF BOTH THE PAR TIES THAT THE FACTS OF THE CASE IN THE YEAR BEING IDENTICAL TO THE FACTS AND ISSUE OF THE CASE IN ITA NO.1994/PUN/2016 AND ITA NO.2202/PUN/2016 FOR A.Y. 2009-10, WE THEREFORE FOR THE REASONS STATED HEREIN W HILE DISPOSING OF THE APPEAL IN ITA NO.1994/PUN/2016 AND ITA NO.2202/PUN /2016 FOR A.Y. 2009-10 AND FOR SIMILAR REASONS, PARTLY ALLOW THE GROU NDS OF ASSESSEE AND DISMISS THE GROUNDS OF REVENUE. THUS, THE GROUNDS OF THE ASSESSEE ARE PARTLY ALLOWED AND THE GROUNDS OF REVENUE ARE DISMISSED. 14. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEALS OF ASSESSEE IN ITA NO. 1995 & 1996/PUN/2016 AND THE APPEALS OF REVENUE IN ITA NOS .2203 & 2204/PUN/2016 FOR A.YS. 2010-11 & 2011-12 ARE DISMI SSED. 9 15. TO SUM UP, ALL THE APPEALS OF ASSESSEE ARE PART LY ALLOWED AND THE APPEALS OF REVENUE ARE DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED ON 22 ND DAY OF OCTOBER, 2018. SD/- SD/- ( SUSHMA CHOWLA ) ( ANIL CHATURVEDI ) ! / JUDICIAL MEMBER '! / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER PUNE; DATED : 22 ND OCTOBER, 2018. YAMINI #$%&'('% / COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. / THE APPELLANT 2. / THE RESPONDENT 3. 4 5. 6. THE CIT(APPEAL)-1, NASHIK. THE CIT, NASHIK. '#$ %%&',) &', / DR, ITAT, A PUNE; $,-./ GUARD FILE. / BY ORDER // TRUE COPY // /01%2&3 / SR. PRIVATE SECRETARY ) &', / ITAT, PUNE.