KONARK PETRO PRODUCTS INDIA PVT. LTD, MUMBAI V. ACIT - CIRCLE -1, KALYAN

ITA 3222/MUM/2018

• Counselvise Citation: [2019] 117 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 0162 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 1 month(s) 11 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 26-06-2019
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: H
• Assessment Year: 2010-2011
• Appeal Filed On: 15-05-2018
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Assessee Lawyers: M SUBRAMANIAM
• Keywords: Reopening of assessment; Bogus purchase; Wrong claim
• Section: 69C; 142(1); 133(6); 143(2); 147; 68; 148

Judgement Text

1 ITA 3222/MUM/2018 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH H, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI G MANJUNATHA (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) AND SHRI RAVISH SOOD (JUDICIAL MEMBER) ITA NO.3222/MUM/2018 (ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2010-11) KONARK PETRO PRODUCTS INDIA P LTD, 111 AND 112, ANIL COMPLEX, NEW LINK ROAD, NEAR RWEGENCY MARRIAGE HALL, ULHASNAGAR-421 002 PAN : AABCK1871H VS ACIT, CIRCLE-1, KALYAN APPELLANT RESPONDEDNT APPELLANT BY SHRI M SUBRAMANIAM RESPONDENT BY SHRI MANOJ KUMAR SINGH DATE OF HEARING 12-06-2019 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT 26-06-2019 O R D E R PER G MANJUNATHA, AM : THIS APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS DIRECTED AGAI NST THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A)-2, PUNE DATED 08-01-2018 AND IT PERTAINS TO AY 2010-11. THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS OF APPEAL:- 1. ON FACTS AND UNDER THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE C ASE AND IN LAW, THE HONORABLE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) WAS NOT JUSTIFIED IN SUSTAINING ADDITION OF RS.5,62,500/- MADE BY THE LE ARNED ASSESSING OFFICER ON 2 ITA 3222/MUM/2018 ACCOUNT OF THE ALLEGED TOTAL SUSPICIOUS PURCHASES. THE LEARNED ASSESSING OFFICER HAD DISALLOWED THE TOTAL ALLEGED SUSPICIOUS PURCHASES AMOUNTING TO RS.5,62,500/- 2. THE BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT THE ASSESSE E COMPANY IS ENGAGED IN THE BUSINESS OF MANUFACTURE OF FORMALDEHYDE, FILED ITS RETURN OF INCOME FOR AY 2010-11 ON 29-09-2010 DECLARING TOTAL INCOME OF RS .81,83,840. SUBSEQUENTLY, THE CASE HAS BEEN REOPENED U/S 147 OF THE I.T. ACT, 1961, ON THE BASIS OF INFORMATION RECEIVED FROM SALES-TAX DEPART MENT, AS PER WHICH CERTAIN DEALERS WERE INVOLVED IN PROVIDING ACCOMMODATION EN TRIES OF BOGUS PURCHASE BILLS TO A LARGE NUMBER OF TAXPAYERS AND THE ASSESS EE BEING ONE OF THE BENEFICIARIES OF SUCH BOGUS BILLS. ACCORDINGLY, NO TICE U/S 148 DATED 20-06-2016 WAS ISSUED AND SERVED UPON THE ASSESSEE. THEREAFTE R, THE CASE WAS SELECTED FOR SCRUTINY AND NOTICES U/S 143(2) AND 142(1) OF T HE ACT, WERE ISSUED. IN RESPONSE TO NOTICE, THE AUTHORISED REPRESENTATIVE O F THE ASSESSEE APPEARED FROM TIME TO TIME AND FILED VARIOUS DETAILS AS CALL ED FOR. DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, AO NOTICED THAT THE ASSESSE E HAS PURCHASED MATERIALS FROM FOUR PARTIES LISTED IN HIS ASSESSMEN T ORDER AT PARA 2.3 AMOUNTING TO RS.5,62,500. THE AO FURTHER OBSERVED THAT THE PARTIES FROM WHOM PURCHASES WERE MADE WERE APPEARING IN THE LIST OF SUSPICIOUS DEALERS PREPARED BY SALES-TAX DEPARTMENT, CONSEQUENTLY CALL ED UPON THE ASSESSEE TO FILE NECESSARY DETAILS INCLUDING PURCHASE BILLS, DE LIVERY CHALLANS, AND OTHER 3 ITA 3222/MUM/2018 DETAILS TO PROVE GENUINENESS OF PURCHASES. IN RESP ONSE, THE ASSESSEE HAS FURNISHED DETAILS OF PURCHASES ALONGWITH COPY OF PU RCHASE BILLS AND PAYMENT PROOF FOR SUCH PURCHASES, BUT FAILED TO FILE FURTHE R EVIDENCE OF TRANSPORTATION BILLS, DELIVERY CHALLANS, ETC. THE AO, ON THE BASI S OF INFORMATION FURNISHED BY THE ASSESSEE AND ALSO BY TAKING NOTE OF INFORMATION RECEIVED FROM DGIT (INV), CAME TO THE CONCLUSION THAT PURCHASES FROM THE ABOV E PARTIES WERE BOGUS IN NATURE WHICH ARE NOT SUPPORTED BY NECESSARY EVIDENC ES. THE AO FURTHER OBSERVED THAT ALTHOUGH 133(6) NOTICES WERE ISSUED T O THE PARTIES, BUT SUCH NOTICES WERE RETURNED UNSERVED WITH A REMARK LEFT . THEREFORE, HE CAME TO THE CONCLUSION THAT THE ASSESSEE FAILED TO PROVE TH E PURCHASES WITH NECESSARY EVIDENCE AND ACCORDINGLY MADE ADDITION OF TS.5,62,5 00 U/S 69C OF THE ACT. 3. AGGRIEVED BY THE ASSESSMENT ORDER, ASSESSEE PREF ERRED APPEAL BEFORE THE CIT(A). BEFORE THE CIT(A), AS PER OBSERVATIONS OF THE CIT(A) IN HIS ORDER, ASSESSEE NEITHER APPEARED NOR FILED ANY WRITTEN SUB MISSIONS EVEN THOUGH NOTICES ISSUED TO THE ASSESSEE. THEREFORE, THE LD. CIT(A) DECIDED THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE EXPARTE ON THE BASIS OF INFOR MATION AVAILABLE ON RECORD AND SUSTAINED ADDITION MADE BY THE AO TOWARDS ALLEG ED BOGUS PURCHASES OF RS.5,62,000 ON THE GROUND THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS FAI LED TO FILE ANY EVIDENCE TO JUSTIFY PURCHASES FROM THE ABOVE PARTIES. THE RELE VANT FINDINGS OF THE LD.CIT(A) ARE AS UNDER:- 4 ITA 3222/MUM/2018 4.7 HON'BLE ITAT PUNE BENCH IN A RECENT DECISION I N THE CASE OF M/S, CHHABI EIECTRICALS PVT. LTD AND ORS. IN ITA NO.795/PUN/2014 DATED 28.04.2017 HAS LAID DOWN FOLLOWING GUIDELINES FOR MAKING DISALLOWA NCES IN THE CASES OF HAWALA PURCHASES: J. IN CASE NO INFORMATION IS RECEIVED BY TH E ASSESSING OFFICER FROM THE SALE TAX DEPARTMENT AND NO COPY OF STATEMENT RECORD ED OR ANY OTHER EVIDENCE IS RECEIVED FROM THE SALES TAX DEPARTMENT, THEN NO ADDITION IS TO BE MADE ON THE BASIS OF NAME OF HAWALA DEALER IN TH E LIST PREPARED BY THE SALES TAX DEPARTMENT, WHERE THE ASSESSEE HAD ASKED FOR THE SAID INFORMATION DURING ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS. II. WHERE THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAD RECEIVED THE STATEMENTS OF PERSONS WHO HAD ADMITTED TO HAVE JUST ISSUED BILLS OF SALE WITHOUT ANY DELIVERY OF GOODS. IN VIEW OF SUCH EVIDENCE, W HERE THE , . ASSESSEE HAD NOT ENTERED INTO REAL TRANSACTION OF PURCHASE O F GOODS AND IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY DELIVERY OF GOODS, THE SALES ARE BOG US AND THE ENTIRE SALES ARE TO BE ADDED IN THE HANDS OF ASSESSEE. ADMITTEDL Y, THE DEALER HAD NOT EVEN PAID VAT AGAINST SUCH PASSING OF GOODS. THE C ASE WHERE THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAD CONFRONTED THE INFORMATION RECEIVED FROM THE SALES TAX DEPARTMENT AND HAD SUPPLIED COPIES OF STATEMENTS RECORDED AND HAD ALSO ISSUED N OTICE UNDER SECTION 133(6) OF THE ACT, WHERE HAWALA DEALER WAS NOT TRAC EABLE AND IN THE ABSENCE OF THE ASSESSEE FAILING TO FILE ANY DOCUMEN TARY EVIDENCE OF DELIVERY OF GOODS, ADDITION IS TO BE UPHELD IN THE HANDS OF ASSESSEE ON ACCOUNT OF SUCH BOGUS PURCHASES IV. THE NEXT INSTANCE IS THE CASE OF GOODS WH ICH HAVE BEEN ADMITTEDLY SOLD BY THE HAWALA DEALER AND HAS BEEN RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSEE, WHO IN TURN HAD MAINTAINED QUANTITATIVE DETAILS AND ALSO E VIDENCE OF ITS MOVEMENT I.E. TRANSPORTATION DETAILS AND QUALITY CO NTROL DETAILS OF CONSUMPTION OF THE SAID MATERIAL OR EXACT DETAILS O F SALE OF THE SAME CONSIGNMENT THROUGH SAME TRANSPORTER DIRECTLY TO TH E PARTY, THEN THE TOTAL PURCHASES CANNOT BE ADDED IN THE HANDS OF ASSESSEE. HOWEVER, SINCE THE PURCHASES ARE MADEFROM THE GREY MARKET, SOME ESTIMA TION NEEDS TO BE MADE IN THE HANDS OF ASSESSEE. THE TRIBUNAL IN M/S. CHETAN ENTERPRISES VS. ACIT (SUPRA) HAS ALREADY HELD THAT THE ADDITION BE MADE BY ESTIMATING THE SAME @ 10% OF THE ALLEGED HAWALA PURCHASES, OVE R AND ABOVE THE GP SHOWN BY THE RESPECTIVE ASSESSEE. V. ANOTHER SET OF CASES WHERE THE STATEMENTS RECORD ED BY THE SALES TAX DEPARTMENT HAVE BEEN HANDED OVER TO THE ASSESSEE AN D THE COPIES OF SAME HAVE BEEN SUPPLIED TO THE ASSESSEE, THEN WHERE .THE ASSESSEE ESTABLISHED THE CASE OF RECEIPT OF GOODS AND ITS ON WARD TRANSMISSION, THEN THE FACTUM OF PURCHASES BY THE ASSESSEE STANDS ESTA BLISHED IN SUCH CIRCUMSTANCES. HOWEVER, ESTIMATION IS TO BE MADE IN THE HANDS OF ASSESSEE BECAUSE OF PURCHASES FROM THE GREY MARKET AND FOLLOWING THE ABOVE SAID RATIO, ADDITION IS TO BE MADE BY ESTIMAT ING THE SAME @ 10% OF THE ALLEGED HAWALA PURCHASES, OVER AND ABOVE THE NE T PROFIT SHOWN BY THE ASSESSEE. 5 ITA 3222/MUM/2018 THE CASE OF THE APPELLANT FALLS UNDER CLAUSE II AND ILL OF THE AFORESAID GUIDELINES AS IN THE PRESENT CASE, NOTICES SENT U/S 133(6) CAME BACK UNSERVED AND THE APPELLANT COULD NOT PRODUCE THE PARTIES FOR VERIFICATION. NOT ONLY THAT, NO OTHER DETAILS EVIDENCING GENUINENESS OF THE PURCHASES COULD BE FILED EXCEPTING SELF MADE LEDGER. 4.9 THE APPELLANT HAS TAKEN AN ALTERNATIVE ARGUMENT THAT ONLY GROSS PROFIT MAY BE TAXED ON THESE PURCHASES. I AM UNABLE TO ACCEPT THI S CONTENTION AND I DRAW STRENGTH FROM THE DECISION OF HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT IN THE CASE OF N.K. PROTEINS LTD VS. DCIT IN IT APPEAL NO. 240-242/2003 DATED 20/06/2016 IN WHICH THE HON'BLE COURT HAS RECOGNISED THE PRINCIPLE THAT IF AN EXPENDITURE INCLUDING PURCHASES IS PROVED TO BE BOGUS UNDER THE IT ACT TH EN THE PROVISION OF SECTION 69C DOES NOT PERMIT ALLOWING PARTIAL EXPENDITURE. T HE RELEVANT PORTION OF THE DECISION OF THE HON'BLE COURT READS AS UNDER: 'THE TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF VIJAY PROTEINS LTD. US . CIT HAS OBSERVED THAT IT WOULD BE JUST AND PROPER TO DIRECT THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO RESTR ICT THE ADDITION IN RESPECT OF THE UNDISCLOSED INCOME RELATING TO THE PURCHASES TO 25% OF THE TOTAL PURCHASES. THE SAID DECISION WAS CONFIRMED BY THIS COURT AS WELL. ONCON SIDERATION OF THE MATTER, WE FIND THAT THE FACTS OF THE PRESENT CASE ARE IDENTICAL TO THOSE OF M/S. INDIAN WOOLLEN CARPET FA CTORY /SUPRA) OR M/S. VIJAY PROTEINS LID. IN THE PRESENT CASE THE TRIBUNAL HAS CATEGORICALLY OBSERVED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD SHOWN BOGUS PURCHASE S AMOUNTING TO RS. 2,92,93,288/- AND TAXING ONLY 25% OF THESE BOGUS CLAIM GOES AGAIN ST THE PRINCIPLES OF SECTIONS 68 AND 69C OF THE INCOME TAX ACT. THE ENTIRE PURCHASES SHO WN ON THE BASIS OF FICTITIOUS INVOICES HAVE BEEN DEBITED IN THE TRADING ACCOUNT SINCE THE TRANSACTION HAS BEEN FOUND TO BE BOGUS. THE TRIBUNAL HAVING ONCE COME TO A CATEGORIC AL FINDING THAT THE AMOUNT OF RS. 2,92,93 T 288/- REPRESENTED ALLEGED PURCHASES FROM BOGUS SUPP LIERS IT WAS NOT INCUMBENT ON IT TO RESTRICT THE DISALLOWANCE TO ONLY RS. 73,23,322/~.' 4.1.0 IN THE ABOVE CASE, HON'BLE ITAT HAD GIVEN THE FINDING THAT ENTIRE PURCHASES WERE CLAIMED IN THE P&L ACCOUNT ON THE BASIS OF FIC TITIOUS INVOICES. THE FINDING WAS BASED ON SEIZED MATERIALS AND OTHER DOCUMENTS. HON'BLE ITAT HAD CONFIRMED ONLY 25% OF THE PURCHASES AS DISALLOWABLE AND NOT 100% AS MADE BY THE AO. HON'BLE COURT IN VIEW OF THESE FACTS HELD T HAT ONCE THE ENTIRE PURCHASES WERE FOUND TO BE BOGUS THEN RESTRICTING THE DISALLO WANCE ONLY TO THE OF 25 /0 9 OES AGAINST THE PRINCIPLE OF SECTION 69C OF THE IT ACT. IT IS NOTICED THAT SLP FILED AGAINST THE DECISION OF HON'BLE HIGH COURT WAS DISMISSED BY THE HON'BLE SUPREME COURT IN CC NO. 769/2017 VIDE ORDER DATED 1 6.01.2017. 4.11 IN THE LIGHT OF THE AFORESAID DISCUSSION ON TH E FACTS OF THE CASE, I FIND NO MERIT IN THE ARGUMENTS TAKEN ON BEHALF OF THE AP PELLANT. ON THE FACE OF ADVERSE FINDING BY THE SALES TAX DEPARTMENT WITH RE GARD TO THE ALLEGED SUPPLIERS WHICH WERE FURTHER CORROBORATED DURING TH E ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, IT IS HELD THAT THE APPELLANT WAS INVO LVED IN HAWALA TRANSACTION TO THE EXTENT OF PURCHASES OF RS. 5,62,500/-. THE A PPELLANT JUST PROCURED ACCOMMODATION BILLS WITHOUT ANY ACTUAL TRANSACTION AND THEREFORE THE ADDITION MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS CONFIRMED. THE GRO UNDS RAISED ARE ACCORDINGLY DISMISSED. 4. THE LD.AR FOR THE ASSESSEE, AT THE TIME OF HEARI NG SUBMITTED THAT THE LD.CIT(A) ERRED IN DISMISSING APPEAL FILED BY THE A SSESSEE EXPARTE WITHOUT GIVING 6 ITA 3222/MUM/2018 AN OPPORTUNITY OF HEARING TO THE ASSESSEE TO ARGUE ITS CASE ON MERITS, WHICH IS EVIDENT FROM THE FACT THAT ALTHOUGH THE CIT(A) CLAI MS TO HAVE ISSUED NOTICE OF HEARING, BUT NOTHING IS COMING OUT OF THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A) ON WHICH DATE SUCH NOTICE HAS BEEN SERVED ON THE ASSESSEE. THE L D. AR FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT ALTHOUGH HE HAS PASSED EXPARTE ORDER, BUT DECI DED THE ISSUE ON MERIT AND UPHELD ADDITION MADE BY THE AO TOWARDS BOGUS PURCHA SES BY FOLLOWING THE DECISION OF GUJARAT HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF NK PR OTEINS LTD VS CIT IN ITA NO 240 TO 242/2003 DATED 20-06-2016 WHERE THE HIGH COU RT HAS AFFIRMED ADDITIONS MADE BY THE AO TOWARDS TOTAL BOGUS PURCHA SES, BUT FACT REMAINS THAT THE SAME GUJARAT HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS S IMIT P SHETH (2013) 356 ITR 451 (GUJ) HAD HELD THAT IN BOGUS PURCHASES ONLY PRO FIT ELEMENT NEEDS TO BE TAXED DEPENDING UPON FACTS OF EACH CASE, BUT NOT WH OLE BOGUS PURCHASES AND ACCORDINGLY SUSTAINED 12.5% PROFIT ON SUCH BOGUS PU RCHASES, THEREFORE, A REASONABLE PROFIT MAY BE ESTIMATED BECAUSE THE ASSE SSEE HAS FILED COMPLETE DETAILS ABOUT THE PURCHASES FROM THOSE PARTIES AND ALSO THE AO NEITHER POINTED OUT ANY DISCREPANCY IN BOOKS OF ACCOUNT NOR MADE OU T A CASE OF SALES OUTSIDE BOOKS. 5. THE LD.DR, ON THE OTHER HAND, STRONGLY SUPPORTED ORDER OF THE CIT(A). 6. WE HAVE HEARD BOTH THE PARTIES AND PERUSED MATER IALS AVAILABLE ON RECORD. IT IS AN ADMITTED FACT THAT THE PARTIES FR OM WHOM THE ASSESSEE CLAIMS 7 ITA 3222/MUM/2018 TO HAVE MADE PURCHASES WHERE APPEARING IN THE LIST OF SUSPICIOUS / HAWALA DEALERS PREPARED BY SALES-TAX DEPARTMENT. IT IS AL SO AN ADMITTED FACT THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED COMPLETE DETAILS INCLUDING PURCH ASE BILLS AND PAYMENT PROOF AGAINST SUCH PURCHASES THROUGH PROPER BANKING CHANN EL. IT IS ALSO AN ADMITTED FACT THAT WHEN THE AO HAS CAUSED ENQUIRIES ABOUT WH EREABOUTS OF THE PARTIES BY ISSUE OF NOTICE U/S 133(6), NOTICES TO SUCH PART IES WERE RETURNED UNSERVED WITH A REMARK LEFTOR UNKNOWN. UNDER THESE FACT S, IT IS DIFFICULT TO ACCEPT THE ARGUMENTS OF THE ASSESSEE THAT PURCHASES FROM T HOSE PARTIES ARE GENUINE WHICH ARE SUPPORTED BY NECESSARY EVIDENCES. AT THE SAME TIME, WE NOTICE THAT THE AO HAS ALSO FAILED TO REACH TO A LOGICAL CONCLU SION BY CONDUCTING NECESSARY ENQUIRIES TO ASCERTAIN TRUE NATURE OF THE TRANSACTI ONS BETWEEN THE PARTIES, BUT HE WENT ON TO MAKE ADDITION ONLY ON THE BASIS OF IN FORMATION RECEIVED FROM DGIT(I NV) WHICH WAS FURTHER SUPPORTED BY SALES-TAX DEPARTMENTS REPORT. THEREFORE, WE ARE OF THE CONSIDERED VIEW THAT EITHE R PARTY FAILED TO PROVE THEIR CASE WITH NECESSARY EVIDENCE. UNDER THESE CIRCUMST ANCES, THE ONLY OPTION LEFT WITH US IS TO SETTLE THE DISPUTE BY FOLLOWING CERTA IN JUDICIAL PRECEDENTS. THE HONBLE GUJARAT HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS SI MIT P SHETH (SUPRA) HAD CONSIDERED AN IDENTICAL ISSUE AND AFTER CONSIDERING RELEVANT FACTS HELD THAT IN CASE OF PURCHASES, WHICH ARE NOT PROVED TO THE SATI SFACTION OF THE AO, THEN ONLY PROFIT ELEMENT EMBEDDED IN THOSE PURCHASES NEEDS TO BE TAXED, BUT NOT WHOLE 8 ITA 3222/MUM/2018 PURCHASES FROM THOSE PARTIES. THE ITAT, MUMBAI IN A NUMBER OF CASES HAS TAKEN A CONSISTENT VIEW AND DIRECTED THE AO TO ESTI MATE PROFIT RANGING FROM 10% TO 15% DEPENDING UPON FACTS OF EACH CASE. IN T HIS CASE, ADMITTEDLY, THE ASSESSEE IS IN THE BUSINESS OF MANUFACTURING OF GOO DS. THEREFORE CONSIDERING THE NATURE OF BUSINESS OF THE ASSESSEE AND ALSO TAK ING SUPPORT FROM THE DECISION OF HONBLE GUJARAT HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS SIMIT P SHETH (SUPRA), WE ARE OF THE CONSIDERED VIEW THAT TO END DISPUTE BETWEEN THE PARTIES, A REASONABLE PROFIT NEEDS TO BE ESTIMATED ON ALLEGE D BOGUS PURCHASES. ACCORDINGLY, WE DIRECT THE AO TO ESTIMATE 12.5% PRO FIT FROM TOTAL ALLEGED BOGUS PURCHASES FROM THOSE PARTIES. 7. COMING TO THE ADDITIONAL GROUND OF APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE BY WAY OF LETTER DATED 12-06-2019. AT THE TIME OF HEARING , THE LD.AR FOR THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT ALTHOUGH THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED ADDI TIONAL GROUNDS CHALLENGING VALIDITY OF RE-ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, BUT IF THE T RIBUNAL ESTIMATED REASONABLE AMOUNT OF PROFIT ON ALLEGED BOGUS PURCHASES, HE WOU LD NOT PRESS THE ADDITIONAL GROUND TAKEN BY THE ASSESSEE CHALLENGING REOPENING OF ASSESSMENT U/S 147 OF THE ACT. SINCE WE HAVE ALREADY DIRECTED THE AO TO ADOPT 12.5% PROFIT ON ALLEGED BOGUS PURCHASES, ADDITIONAL GROUND FILED BY THE ASSESSEE CHALLENGING VALIDITY OF REOPENING OF ASSESSMENT HAS BEEN DISMIS SED, AS NOT PRESSED. 8. IN THE RESULT, APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS P ARTLY ALLOWED. 9 ITA 3222/MUM/2018 ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 26-06-2019. SD/- SD/- (RAVISH SOOD) (G MANJUNATHA) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER MUMBAI, DT : 26 TH JUNE, 2019 PK/- COPY TO : 1. APPELLANT 2. RESPONDENT 3. CIT(A) 4. CIT 5. DR /TRUE COPY/ BY ORDER ASSTT. REGISTRAR, ITAT, MUMBAI