M/s. Maxima Systems Ltd., Valsad V. The Dy.CIT., Valsad Circle, Valsad

ITA 302/AHD/2016

• Counselvise Citation: [2022] 103 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 9283 (ITAT-SURAT)
• Duration Of Justice: 6 year(s) 8 month(s) 25 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 30-10-2022
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: PartlyAllowed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Next Hearing Date: 17-10-2022
• Assessment Year: 2009-2010
• Appeal Filed On: 04-02-2016
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Bogus purchase; Unexplained expenditure; Depreciation; Liquidation
• Section: 148; 271(1)(c); 143(3); 234B; 133(6); 143(2); 73

Judgement Text

आयकर अपीलȣय अͬधकरण, स ु रत Ûयायपीठ, स ु रत IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, SURAT BENCH, SURAT BEFORE SHRI PAWAN SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND Dr ARJUN LAL SAINI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आ.अ.सं./ITA Nos.302 & 303/AHD/2016 (AYs 2009-10 & 2010-11) (Hearing in Physical Court) M/s Maxima Systems Ltd., B-1, Yash Kamal, Tithal Road, Valsad. PAN : AABCM 5861 H Vs Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax, Valsad Circle, 208, Palak Arcade, Shanti Nagar, Tithal Road, Valsad अपीलाथȸ/Appellant Ĥ×यथȸ /Respondent आ.अ.सं./ITA Nos.134 & 135/SRT/2018 (AYs 2010-11 & 2011-12) M/s Maxima Systems Ltd., B-1, Yash Kamal, Tithal Road, Valsad- PAN : AABCM 5861 H Vs Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax, Valsad Circle, 208, Palak Arcade, Shanti Nagar, Tithal Road, Valsad अपीलाथȸ/Appellant Ĥ×यथȸ /Respondent Ǔनधा[ǐरती कȧ ओर से /Assessee by Shri Kishore Mali, C.A (from the office of Shri Sapnesh Sheth & Associates CA) राजèव कȧ ओर से /Revenue by Shri Ashok B Koli, CIT-DR & Shri J.K.Chandnani, Sr-DR सुनवाई की तारीख/Date of hearing 18.10.2022 उɮघोषणा कȧ तारȣख/Date of pronouncement 31.10.2022 Order under section 254(1) of Income Tax Act PER PAWAN SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER: 1. This group of four appeals by assessee are directed against separate orders of Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals)- ITA Nos.302-303/AHD/2016 & 134-135/SRT/2018 (A.Ys 09-10-10-11 & 11-12) M/s Maxima Systems Ltd. 2 Valsad [for short to as “Ld. CIT(A)”] dated 03.12.2015 and 05.12.2017, which in turn arise out of separate assessment order passed under section 143(3) r.w.s 147 of Income-Tax Act, 1961 (Act) dated 28.03.2014 and 31.03.2016 respectively. Though assessee’s two appeals relate to same assessment year i.e., 2010-11 and remaining appeals are assessment years 2009-10 and 2011-12. In all appeals the assessee has raised certain common grounds of appeals. Facts in all appeals are almost common except variation of amount on account of addition of bogus purchases of unexplained expenditure. Therefore, all the appeals were clubbed, heard together and are decided by common order to avoid the conflicting decisions. For appreciation of fact the fact in assessment year 2009-10 in ITA No. 302/AHD/2016 are treated as “lead” case. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal: “1. The ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in confirming the action of ld. AO in reopening the case of the appellant u/s 147 of the Act. 2. The ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and on the facts in making addition of Rs.1,49,81,520/- on account of unexplained expenditure by treating the purchase made from M/s Prakash Trading ITA Nos.302-303/AHD/2016 & 134-135/SRT/2018 (A.Ys 09-10-10-11 & 11-12) M/s Maxima Systems Ltd. 3 Corporation, M/s Shankheshwar Sales Corporation and M/s Shree Keshar Impex Metal Pvt.Ltd. as bogus purchases. 3. The ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and on the facts in treating the purchase as bogus purchase ignoring the fact that genuineness of corresponding sale has not been doubted by the ld. AO. 4. Alternatively and without prejudice, only a token and not the whole of the purchase ought to have been disallowed. 5. The ld. CIT(A) ought to have appreciated that the ld. AO has erred in law and on the facts of the case in making addition of Rs.36,23,091/-by holding that carried forward loss of Rs,.19,21,262/- was not available for set off and balance income of Rs.17,01,829/- after setting off the business loss and alleged excess carried forward loss of Rs.19,21,262/- are income of the appellant for the year under consideration. 6. Both the power authorities have passed the orders without properly appreciating the facts and that they further erred in grossly ignoring various submission, explanations and information submitted by the appellant from time to time which ought to have been considered before passing the impugned order. 7. The ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and on the facts in confirming the action of ld. AO in charging interest u/s 234B and 234C. 8.The ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and on the facts in confirming the action of ld. AO in initiating the penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act ” 2. Brief facts of the case are that assessee is a Public Limited Company. The assessee filed its return of income for assessment year 2009-10 on 27.09.2009 declaring total income of Rs. Nil. The case was selected for scrutiny and assessment was completed under section 143(3) on ITA Nos.302-303/AHD/2016 & 134-135/SRT/2018 (A.Ys 09-10-10-11 & 11-12) M/s Maxima Systems Ltd. 4 29.12.2011. Thereafter the case of assessee was re-opened under section 147 and notice under section 148 dated 26.03.2013 was issued and served upon the assessee on 28.03.2013. The case of assessee was re-opened on the basis of information received from Sales Tax Department, Government of Maharashtra that during the financial year 2008-09 the assessee has shown bogus purchases of Rs.1,49,81,520/- from Hawala dealers namely Shankheshwar Sales Corporation, Prakash Trading Corporation and Shree Keshar Impex Metal Private Limited, which were the proprietary concern of Shri Vikram S Chaudhary. The Sales Tax Department made an investigation, wherein it was revealed that Shri Vikram S Chaudhary was indulging and providing accommodation entries without actual delivery of goods. On the basis of such information, the Assessing Officer has reasoned to believe that income of the assessee to the extent of Rs.1.498 crores as escaped assessment. 3. In response to notice under section 148, the ae filed its reply dated 29.03.2013 and contended to treat the return of income filed on 27.09.2009 as a return of income in response to notice ITA Nos.302-303/AHD/2016 & 134-135/SRT/2018 (A.Ys 09-10-10-11 & 11-12) M/s Maxima Systems Ltd. 5 under section 148 of the Act. The assessee requested for reasons recorded. The reasons recorded was provided to the assessee vide letter 05.08.201. The assessee filed its objection against the re-opening. The objection raised by assessee was disposed off / rejected vide speaking order. The Assessing Officer after rejection of such objection proceeded of re- assessment after serving notice under section 143(2) and 142(1) of the Act. During the re-assessment proceedings, the Assessing Officer recorded that assessee has shown purchases from following parties: - Sl. No Name of Party Amount (Rs) 1 Shnkeshwar Sales Corporation 1,17,72,828/- 2 Prakash Trading Corporation 22,13,786/- 3 Shree Keshar Impex Metals Private Limited 9,94,906/- total 1,49,81,520/- 4. The Assessing Officer after recording the details of bogus purchase and modus operandi of hawala operator and referring the contents of affidavit, which was filed by such entry provider before Sales Tax Department Government of Maharashtra, noted that such entry provider admitted that they have not made any genuine transaction and issued bills ITA Nos.302-303/AHD/2016 & 134-135/SRT/2018 (A.Ys 09-10-10-11 & 11-12) M/s Maxima Systems Ltd. 6 to the parties on commission basis @ 0.05% of bill amount. In order to verify the genuineness of the parties, the Assessing Officer issued notice under section 133(6) for seeking certain information, however, the notice was returned back unserved. 5. On the basis of his observation and investigation carried out by Assessing Officer, issued show cause to the assessee and contents of which is recorded in para-4.1 of the assessment order, wherein the Assessing Officer show caused as to why the purchases should not be treated as ingenuine and made addition thereon. The Assessing Officer also identified the issue of unabsorbed depreciation which could be carried forward up to eight years and that assessee was not entitled to carry forward the loss on more than 8 years. The Assessing Officer recorded that on show cause notice, the Ld. Authorized Representative (AR) for the assessee appeared and stated that confirmation of all the parties shall be furnished shortly. The assessee furnished bills, ledger account of the parties to establish the genuineness of such transactions. The Assessing Officer asked the assessee to produce the parties that the proprietary of Shankheshwar Sales Corporation, Shree Keshar ITA Nos.302-303/AHD/2016 & 134-135/SRT/2018 (A.Ys 09-10-10-11 & 11-12) M/s Maxima Systems Ltd. 7 Impex Metals Private limited and Prakash Trading Corporation. The Assessing Officer recorded that assessee failed to produce the parties before him and could not produce its own stock register. The Assessing Officer disallowed the entire expenses shown against aggregate of purchase shown from Shankheshwar Sales Corporation, Prakash Trading Corporation and Shree Keshar Impex Metals Private Limited. The Assessing Officer after verifying unabsorbed losses of earlier years held that assessee carried forward business loss of Rs. 19,21,262/-, even though there was no business loss available for set off. On the basis of his working as mentioned in para-7 of assessment order the assessing officer worked out income of assessee at Rs.17,01,829/- and made further addition of Rs.36,23,091/- in the total income of assessee. Though, ultimately the assessing officer assessed nil income by allowing unabsorbed depreciation in assessment order dated 28.03.2014 passed under section 143(3) rws 147. 6. Aggrieved by the addition as well as re-opening the assessee filed appeal before Ld. CIT(A). Before Ld. CIT(A) the assessee filed detailed written submission. The submission of assessee ITA Nos.302-303/AHD/2016 & 134-135/SRT/2018 (A.Ys 09-10-10-11 & 11-12) M/s Maxima Systems Ltd. 8 was recorded in para-5 of the order of Ld. CIT(A). The assessee submitted that they have furnished the complete details before the Assessing Officer about the purchases of material and that payments were made through banking channel. The Assessing Officer stressing upon the consumption of material and asking of inward forward and outward of the stock register and created doubt on the transaction of purchase. The Assessing Officer has accepted the corresponding sales and doubted the purchases only. The purchases were made through banking channels, if the payments were returned in cash to the assessee was never verified by the Assessing Officer. The assessee has paid value added tax (VAT) on all the purchase including on the purchases treated by Assessing Officer as bogus. The assessee relied on the various case law on the ratio of that where the supplier was declared as a hawala and the assessee proved the purchases by furnishing necessary documents, more particularly that payments were made through account payee cheque, highlighting the bank statement and the Assessing Officer has not conducted any ITA Nos.302-303/AHD/2016 & 134-135/SRT/2018 (A.Ys 09-10-10-11 & 11-12) M/s Maxima Systems Ltd. 9 independent inquiry and no opportunity to cross-examination of such party was given, no addition can be made. 7. The Ld. CIT(A) after considering the submission of assessee and the assessment order held that the supplier in his statement accepted about bogus transactions. The statement of Vikram S Chaudhary, proprietor of Shankheshwar Sales Corporation and Prakash Trading Company was recorded and in his affidavit filed by him, he confirmed transaction of purchases as bogus transaction. The Assessing Officer reproduced all these documents in the assessment order. The Ld. CIT(A) held that Assessing Officer found that the business of issuing of bogus bills was done on commission basis which was admitted at 0.05% of bill amount, admitted in the modus operandi, that cheques were received from the parties and cash was paid along with the bill after deducting the commission to the purchasing parties. All the transactions reported by the Sales Tax Department were found in the books of assessee. To verify the genuineness, the Assessing Officer issued notice under section 133(6), which were received back undelivered and a further notice was issued to assessee to ITA Nos.302-303/AHD/2016 & 134-135/SRT/2018 (A.Ys 09-10-10-11 & 11-12) M/s Maxima Systems Ltd. 10 prove the genuineness of the entries involved and was asked to provide copy of bills, bank statement, inward register, stock register and proof of consumption of purchased materials. In response to assessee submitted ledger accounts of Shankheshwar Sales Corporation and Keshar Impex Metals Private Ltd along with bills of said purchase but no stock register, inward register and proof of consumption of purchased material was produced. The Assessing Officer asked the assessee to produce the parties but assessee failed to do so and Assessing Officer made addition of Rs.1,49,81,520/- being unexplained expenditure. On his aforesaid observation, the ld CIT(A) upheld the addition of bogus purchases. On the ground of appeal against the validity of reopening, the Ld. CIT(A) held that no specific submission was made by assessee in its written submission. The Ld. CIT(A) held that assessment was re-opened on the basis of information from Sales Tax Department that certain concerns were issuing bogus bills on the basis of commission and the name of the parties who received the bogus purchases bills along with the amounts were also mentioned. This was the ITA Nos.302-303/AHD/2016 & 134-135/SRT/2018 (A.Ys 09-10-10-11 & 11-12) M/s Maxima Systems Ltd. 11 sufficient information which led to the Assessing Officer to believe that income has escaped from assessment. Thus, there is no infirmity in the re-opening and dismissed the corresponding ground of appeal. Further aggrieved, the assessee has filed present appeal before the Tribunal. 8. This appeal was filed in 2016 and assessee was seeking dates over the dates on one pretext of the other. Not a single document in the form of evidence, to substantiate various grounds of appeal is filed before the Tribunal till today. The assessee was given more than 15 opportunities on various dates from 2018. On 31 December 2021, the Ld. AR for the assessee who was appearing on behalf of assessee submitted that the assessee is not providing information and necessary document. The Ld. AR for the assessee also submitted that assessee was suffering loss and the financial institutions i.e., banker of the assessee has initiated recovery proceedings against the assessee. The business premises of assessee was also attacked by the banker of assessee under Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act (SARFESI Act). The Ld. AR for the ITA Nos.302-303/AHD/2016 & 134-135/SRT/2018 (A.Ys 09-10-10-11 & 11-12) M/s Maxima Systems Ltd. 12 assessee also submitted that the creditors of the assessee also initiated proceedings before National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) under Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code for liquidation. After making all such submissions, the ld AR for the assessee requested to seek discharge from the hearing and submitted that he has already informed the consequences to the official of assessee as well as to their instructed Chartered Accountant that in absence of any evidence and information he is unable to pursue all the appeals. All such facts brought to the notice of this Tribunal was recorded in various order sheets including in order sheet entry dated 31.01.2022, 30.05.2022, 31.08.2022 and 18.10.2022. 9. On 18.10.2022, we find that neither documents are filed on record nor any written submissions are filed, rather the ld AR appeared from the office of Sh Sapesh Sheth submitted that no documents or information is provided by the assessee and their authority letter may be treated as withdrawn. In such circumstances, we left no option except to proceed to decide the appeal after hearing the submission of Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax-Departmental Representative (Ld. CIT-DR) and ITA Nos.302-303/AHD/2016 & 134-135/SRT/2018 (A.Ys 09-10-10-11 & 11-12) M/s Maxima Systems Ltd. 13 Senior Departmental Representative (Sr. DR) for the Revenue and perused the materials available on record. 10. The Ld. CIT-DR for the Revenue submits that the case of assessee was re-opened on the basis of information received from Sales Tax Department, Mumbai that from well-known entry provider the assessee has availed accommodation entry of bogus purchases. On the basis of such information, the case of assessee was re-opened. The ld AR for the assessee submits that Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court in the case of Peass Industrial Engineers (P.) Ltd. vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax (2016) 73 taxmann.com 185 (Gun) has categorically held that where after scrutiny assessment, the Assessing Officer received information from investigation wing that well-known entry operators of country provided bogus entries to various beneficiaries, and assessee was one of such beneficiary, assessing officer was justified in reopening assessment. On the merit of addition of bogus purchases, Ld. CIT-DR for the Revenue submits that this appeal was filed in 2016 till date not a single document is filed by the assessee to substantiate the genuineness of such purchases. The assessee ITA Nos.302-303/AHD/2016 & 134-135/SRT/2018 (A.Ys 09-10-10-11 & 11-12) M/s Maxima Systems Ltd. 14 simply claiming that payments made through cheque. Mere payment made through cheque is not sacrosanct and prayed to uphold the additions made by assessing officer. On the addition on account of disallowance of carry forward loss, the ld.CIT-DR for the Revenue submits that no such grounds of appeal were raised before Ld. CIT(A) and the facts are not emanating from the order of Ld. CIT(A). Once the assessee has not challenged the addition before the First Appellate Authority (FAA) the assessee is now estopped (precluded) for raising such grounds of appeal even otherwise the addition was made on appreciation of facts and not on legal issue. The ld DR for the revenue prayed for dismissal of the appeal. 11. We have considered the submission of Ld. CIT-DR for the Revenue and perused the orders of lower authorities carefully. Ground No. 1 relates to validity of reopening. We find that case of assessee was reopened under section 147 on the basis of information received from Sales Tax Department, Mumbai that assessee is one of the beneficiary of bogus purchases from entry provider. The Assessing Officer in the assessment order has extracted the statement of such hawala operator as well ITA Nos.302-303/AHD/2016 & 134-135/SRT/2018 (A.Ys 09-10-10-11 & 11-12) M/s Maxima Systems Ltd. 15 as copy of their affidavit filed before sales tax authorities Mumbai. On the basis of such specific information, the assessing officer reopened the case of assessee after recording his satisfaction that income of the assessee has escaped assessment. Before Ld. CIT(A) no specific submission was made against such re-opening, no doubt the assessee has challenged the validity of reopening before the Ld. CIT(A). The Ld. CIT(A) in his categorical finding held that assessee has not made any specific submission on reopening. It was also held that information received from Sales Tax Department is sufficient to lead to the believe that income of ae is escaped assessment. We find that Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court in the case of Peass Industrial Engineers (P.) Ltd. (supra) held that where after scrutiny assessment, Assessing Officer received information from investigation wing that well known entry operator of country provided bogus entries to various beneficiaries, and assessee was one of such beneficiary, Assessing Officer was justified in reopening assessment. In view of the aforesaid factual and legal discussion and by following the judgment of Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court in ITA Nos.302-303/AHD/2016 & 134-135/SRT/2018 (A.Ys 09-10-10-11 & 11-12) M/s Maxima Systems Ltd. 16 the case of Peass Industrial Engineers (P.) Ltd. (supra), we do not find any infirmity in the reopening. This ground No.1 of assessees appeal is dismissed. 12. Ground Nos. 2 to 4 relate to addition of bogus purchases of Rs.1.498 crores. We find that during the assessment, the Assessing Officer asked the assessee to substantiate such purchases shown from the parties, which was identified as bogus/ hawala party by VAT/sales tax department Mumbai. The Assessing Officer recorded that notice sent under section 133(6) to the supplier was returned back as unserved. The assessee was asked to produce the parties but assessee failed to produce them. The assessee was again asked to produce copy of bills, bank statement, inward register, outward register and proof of consumption of purchased material. The Assessing Officer clearly held that despite given opportunity assessee failed to produce required details. Before Ld. CIT(A) the assessee again failed to produce such evidence and confirmed the addition of bogus purchase. 13. We find that during the assessment neither the books of assessee was rejected nor the sales of assessee is disputed. ITA Nos.302-303/AHD/2016 & 134-135/SRT/2018 (A.Ys 09-10-10-11 & 11-12) M/s Maxima Systems Ltd. 17 The Assessing Officer while passing the assessment order treated the recorded nature of business of assessee “trading”. In trading, the sales are not possible in absence of purchase. In our view if there is allegation of bogus purchases and the Assessing Officer made the addition on the basis of third party information without disputing the sales of assessee and without rejecting the books of account of assessee, though the assessee could not fully substantiate the genuineness of such purchase, the entire disallowance of aggregate of purchase is not justified. In such circumstances to avoid the possibility of revenue leakage, only profit element in such purchase may be disallowed. The Assessing Officer has nowhere disputed the sales of assessee. In such circumstances a reasonable and ad- hock disallowance would be sufficient to avoid the possibility of revenue leakage. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case we are of the view that @ 10% of aggregate of purchase would be sufficient to avoid the possibility of revenue leakage. ITA Nos.302-303/AHD/2016 & 134-135/SRT/2018 (A.Ys 09-10-10-11 & 11-12) M/s Maxima Systems Ltd. 18 14. In view of the aforesaid factual discussion, the ground Nos. 2 to 4 of assessee’s appeal are partly allowed and necessary computation to follow as per law. 15. Ground No.5 relates to addition on account of disallowance of carry forward loss / unabsorbed business loss. We find that while filing the appeal before Ld. CIT(A) no such ground of appeal was raised. Therefore, thereby the assessee has raised new and additional Ground of appeal. No application for admission of additional grounds of appeal is filed before Tribunal. The addition based on factual appreciation of fact, in our view, once the assessee has not raised such ground of appeal before ld CIT(A)/ FAA, the assessee is now precluded to raise such ground of appeal before Tribunal. Thus ground of assessees appeal is dismissed. 16. Grounds No.6 to 8 are general in nature and do not require any adjudication. 17. In the result, assessee’s appeal ITA No.302/AHD/2016 is partly allowed. ITA No.303/AHD/2016 for A.Y. 2010-11 (assessment order under section 143(3) rws 147 dated 28.03.2013) ITA Nos.302-303/AHD/2016 & 134-135/SRT/2018 (A.Ys 09-10-10-11 & 11-12) M/s Maxima Systems Ltd. 19 18. In this appeal, though the assessee has raised as many as seven grounds of appeal. However, in our considered view, the substantial grounds in this appeals are only two; i.e. first relates to validity of reopening and second relates to additions of bogus/ disputed purchase from hawala parties. 19. Considering the fact that on similar set of fact and on similar grounds of appeal in assessee’s appeal in ITA No.302/AHD/2016, therefore following the principle of consistency the substantial first ground of appeal is dismissed. However similarly substantial ground no. two is partly allowed with similar direction as passed on ground No. 2 to 4 of appeal in ITA No.302/AHD/2016 (supra). 20. In the result, assessee’s appeal ITA No.303/AHD/2016 is partly allowed. 21. Now we shall take up ITA No. 134/Srt/2018 for AY 2010-11 (assessment order under section 143(3) r.w.s 147 dated 31.03.2016). 22. The case of assessee was again reopened under section 147 on the basis of information that the assessee has availed bogus purchase entry from hawala trader namely Shreyansh Corporation of Mumbai (same party who is involved in earlier ITA Nos.302-303/AHD/2016 & 134-135/SRT/2018 (A.Ys 09-10-10-11 & 11-12) M/s Maxima Systems Ltd. 20 years). The assessee officer after granting opportunity to the assessee and rejecting the books of accounts of assessee and made addition of 100% purchases shown from such hawala party. The assessee has shown purchases of Rs. 69,16,000/-, hence, the assessing officer added the entire amount of to the income of assesse. The assessing officer also made addition of commissions payment @ 0.05% of the quantum of bill amount. The assessing officer thereby worked out the addition of Rs. 3,458/- while passing the assessment order under section 143(3) r.w.s 147 on 31.03.2016. On appeal before ld CIT(A), both the additions were upheld by ld CIT(A). 23. Considering the facts that on similar disallowances of purchases, we have restricted to the addition to the extent of 10% of the disputed purchases, therefore following the principal of consistency, the addition of bogus purchases is party allowed. So far as additions of commission payment is concerned, keeping in view that we have restricted the addition of alleged bogus purchase to the extent of 10%, therefore, we direct to delete addition of commission payment. 24. In the result, this appeal is partly allowed. ITA Nos.302-303/AHD/2016 & 134-135/SRT/2018 (A.Ys 09-10-10-11 & 11-12) M/s Maxima Systems Ltd. 21 25. Now we shall take up ITA No. 135/Srt/2018 for AY 2011-12 (assessment order under section 143(3) r.w.s 147 dated 31.03.2016). 26. The case of assessee for AY 2011-12 was reopened under section 147 on the basis of information that the assessee has availed bogus purchase entry from hawala trader namely Shreyansh Corporation and Pavitra Traders of Mumbai (same parties who were involved some other years). The assessee officer after granting opportunity to the assessee and rejecting the books of accounts of assessee and made addition of 100% purchases shown from such hawala party. The assessee has shown purchases of Rs. 50,30,508/-, hence, the assessing officer added the entire amount of to the income of assesse. The assessing officer also made addition of commissions payment @ 0.05% of the quantum of bill amount. The assessing officer thereby worked out the addition of Rs. 2,515/- while passing the assessment order under section 143(3) r.w.s 147 on 31.03.2016. On appeal before ld CIT(A), both the additions were upheld by ld CIT(A). 27. Considering the facts that on similar disallowances of purchases, we have restricted to the addition to the extent of ITA Nos.302-303/AHD/2016 & 134-135/SRT/2018 (A.Ys 09-10-10-11 & 11-12) M/s Maxima Systems Ltd. 22 10% of the disputed purchases, therefore following the principal of consistency, the addition of bogus purchases is party allowed. So far as additions of commission payment is concerned, keeping in view that we have restricted the addition of alleged bogus purchase to the extent of 10%, therefore, we direct to delete addition of commission payment. 28. In the result, this appeal is partly allowed. 29. In combined result, all the appeals of assessee are partly allowed. 30. A copy of the instant common order be placed in the respective case file(s). Order pronounced in the open court on 31/10/2022. Sd/- Sd/- (Dr ARJUN LAL SAINI) (PAWAN SINGH) [लेखा सद᭭य/ACCOUNTANT MEMBER] [᭠याियक सद᭭य JUDICIAL MEMBER] Surat, Dated: 31/10/2022 Dkp. Out Sourcing Sr.P.S Copy to: 1. Appellant- 2. Respondent- 3. CIT(A)- 4. CIT 5. DR 6. Guard File True copy/ By order // True Copy // Sr. P.S./Assistant Registrar, ITAT, Surat