SHRI.PRITHVIRAJ S. BHANSALI, Mumbai V. ITO-19(2)(5), Mumbai

ITA 469/MUM/2019

• Counselvise Citation: [2020] 111 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 5808 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 9 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 10-02-2020
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Assessment Year: 2009-2010
• Appeal Filed On: 31-01-2019
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Bogus purchase; Question of law; Reasonable cause; Accommodation entries; Condonation of delay
• Section: 133(6); 143(1); 145(3); 147; 6

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL SMC, BENCH MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI SAKTIJIT DEY, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI G. MANJUNATHA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO.469 & 470/MUM/2019 ( ASSESSMENT YEARS: 2009-10 & 2011-12 ) PRITHVIRAJ S. BHANSALI SHOP NO.1, SHIVTIRTH BUILDING 10-12, SINGHI LANE MUMBAI-400 004 VS. ITO-19(2)(5) ROOM NO.210, MATRU MANDIR TARDEO ROAD MUMBAI-400 007 PAN/GIR NO. AAOPB6578N APPELLANT ) .. RESPONDENT ) ASSESSEE BY SHRI NEEL KHANDELWAL, AR REVENUE BY SHRI ASHISH KUMAR, DR DATE OF HEARING 27/01/2020 DATE OF PRONOUNCEME NT 10 / 0 2 /2020 / O R D E R PER G.MANJUNATHA (A.M) : THESE TWO APPEALS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE ARE DIRECTE D AGAINST SEPARATE, BUT IDENTICAL ORDERS OF THE LD. COMMISSIO NER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS)-30, MUMBAI, DATED 11/05/2018 AND 30/0 5/2018 AND THEY PERTAINS TO AY 2009-10 AND 2011-12. SINCE, THE FACTS ARE IDENTICAL AND ISSUES ARE COMMON, FOR THE SAKE OF CO NVENIENCE, THESE APPEALS WERE HEARD TOGETHER AND ARE DISPOSED-OFF BY THIS CONSOLIDATED ORDER. ITA NOS.469 & 470/MUM/2019 PRITHVIRAJ S. BHANSALI 2 2. THE ASSESSEE HAS RAISED MORE OR LESS COMMON GROU NDS OF APPEAL FOR BOTH AYS. THEREFORE, FOR THE SAKE OF BR EVITY, GROUNDS OF APPEAL FILED FOR AY 2009-10 ARE REPRODUCED AS UNDER :- 1.A) ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF TH E CASE AND IN LAW, THE ID. C1T(A) ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE ADDITION OF RS. 7,13,462/- MADE BY THE AO TO THE INCOME OF THE APPELLANT ON ACCOUNT OF PRO FIT ELEMENT @ 12.5% EMBEDDED IN THE SO CALLED UN-PROVED PURCHASES OF RS . 57,07,700/- THE BASIS OF INFORMATION OF THE SALES TAX DEPARTMENT AB OUT SUSPICIOUS DEALERS AFTER REJECTING THE BOOK RESULT U/S. 145(3) . B) THE ID. CITJA) FAILED TO APPRECIATE THAT :- I) ALL THE PURCHASES ARE GENUINE BEY OND DOUBT AND SUPPORTED BY SUFFICIENT MATERIALS AND ARE BACKED BY CORRESPON DING SALES; II) THE GROSS PROFIT RATIO SHOWN BY THE APPEL LANT IS QUITE REASONABLE; III) THE PAYMENT OF PURCHASES ARE MADE BY ACC OUNT PAYEE CHEQUES ONLY; IV) NOTHING HAS BEEN BROUGHT ON RECORD BY THE ID. AO THAT MONEY HAS EXCHANGED THE HANDS IN LIEU OF PAYMENT MADE FOR THE SE PURCHASES BY ACCOUNT PAYEE CHEQUE; AND V) THE ID. AO NEITHER PROVIDED COPY OF MATER IALS AND STATEMENTS RELIED UPON BY HIM NOR ALLOWED ANY OPPORTUNITY TO T HE APPELLANT TO CROSS EXAMINE THOSE PARTIES WHO HAVE BEEN ALLEGED TO HAVE PROVIDED THE ALLEGED ENTRIES OF SUCH PURCHASES. C) THE ID. CIT(A) FAILED TO APPRECIATE THAT THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT MAINTAINED BY THE APPELLANT ARE CORRECT AND COMPLET E IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE METHOD OF ACCOUNTING REGULARLY AND CONSISTENTLY FOLLOWED BY THE APPELLANT. D) IN REACHING TO THE CONCLUSION AND CONFIRMING SUCH ADDITION THE ID. AO OMITTED TO CONSIDER RELEVANT FACTORS, CONSIDERAT IONS, PRINCIPLES AND EVIDENCES WHILE HE WAS OVERWHELMED, INFLUENCED AND PREJUDICED BY IRRELEVANT CONSIDERATIONS AND FACTORS. E) WITHOUT PREJUDICE, THE RATE OF PROFIT ELEMEN T EMBEDDED IN SUCH PURCHASES IS EXCESSIVE AND UNREASONABLE ON THE FACT S OF THE CASE. 2. THE CIT(A) ERRED IN HOLDING THAT GROUND RAISED D ISPUTING THE INITIATION OF THE PENALTY PROCEEDINGS U/S, 271(L)(C) OF THE INCOM E TAX ACT, 1961 IS PREMATURE. THE APPELLANT DENIES ITS LIABILITY FOR S UCH PENALTY. 3. THE APPELLANT WAS PREVENTED BY SUFFICIENT AN D REASONABLE CAUSE FROM PRESENTING THE PRESENT APPEAL WITHIN THE PRES CRIBED TIME AND THEREFORE PRAYS YOUR HONOUR TO CONDONE THE DELAY IN PRESENTING THE APPEAL AND ADMIT THE APPEAL IN THE FAIRNESS OF LAW. 3. AT THE OUTSET, THE LD. AR FOR THE ASSESSEE SUBMI TTED THAT THERE IS A DELAY OF 198 DAYS IN FILING APPEAL FOR AY 200 9-10 AND 180 DAYS DELAY FOR FILING APPEAL FOR AY 2011-12, FOR WHICH N ECESSARY PETITION FOR CONDONATION OF DELAY ALONG WITH AFFIDAVIT HAS B EEN FILED EXPLAINING REASONS FOR DELAY IN FILING. THE LD. AR FURTHER S UBMITTED THAT THE ITA NOS.469 & 470/MUM/2019 PRITHVIRAJ S. BHANSALI 3 DELAY IN FILING BOTH APPEALS IS DUE TO MISTAKEN OF FACTS BY THE ACCOUNTANT OF THE ASSESSEE, WHICH RESULTED IN A SHO RT DELAY OF LESS THAN 200 DAYS FOR BOTH YEARS. THEREFORE, IN THE INT EREST OF THE JUSTICE, THE DELAY IN FILING APPEALS FOR BOTH AYS MAY BE CO NDONED AND THE ISSUES IN APPEAL MAY BE DECIDED ON MERITS. THE LD. DR, ON THE OTHER HAND DID NOT OPPOSED APPLICATION FILED BY THE ASSES SEE. 4. HAVING HEARD BOTH THE PARTIES AND CONSIDERED, TH E REASONS GIVEN BY THE ASSESSEE FOR NOT FILING APPEALS IN TIM E, AS PRESCRIBED UNDER THE ACT, WE DEEM IT APPROPRIATE TO CONDONED T HE DELAY IN FILING APPEALS FOR BOTH AYS AND ADMIT THE APPEAL FOR BOTH YEARS TO DECIDE THE ISSUES ON MERITS ITA NO.469/MUM/2019 5. THE BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT THE ASSESSE E IS AN INDIVIDUAL ENGAGED IN THE BUSINESS OF TRADING IN FE RROUS AND NON FERROUS METALS, UNDER THE NAME AND STYLE OF M/S PAR AG METALS, FILED HIS RETURN OF INCOME FOR AY 2009-10 ON 26/09/2009, DECLARING TOTAL INCOME OF RS. 9,43,950 AND SUCH RETURN WAS PROCESSE D U/S 143(1) OF THE ACT. THE CASE HAS BEEN SUBSEQUENTLY REOPENED U /S 147 OF THE ACT, ON THE BASIS OF INFORMATION RECEIVED FROM DGIT , INVESTIGATION, MUMBAI, AS PER WHICH, SALES TAX AUTHORITIES OF GOVE RNMENT OF MAHARASHTRA HAD TAKEN ACTIONS AGAINST NUMBER OF HA WALA DEALERS, WHO HAD ISSUED BOGUS PURCHASE BILLS TO VARIOUS PART IES IN MUMBAI AND OTHER PLACES. AS PER LIST OF BENEFICIARIES, THE ASSESSEE IS ONE OF THE BENEFICIARY, WHO HAD TAKEN ACCOMMODATION BILLS OF BOGUS PURCHASES FROM M/S SHREE SUNDHA STEELS PVT LTD FOR RS. 57,07,700/- . THE CASE WAS SELECTED FOR SCRUTINY AND THE ASSESS MENT HAS BEEN ITA NOS.469 & 470/MUM/2019 PRITHVIRAJ S. BHANSALI 4 COMPLETED U/S. 143(3).R.W.S. 147 OF THE I.T.ACT, 19 61 ON 13/03/2015 AND DETERMINED TOTAL INCOME OF RS. 16,57,410/-, AFT ER MAKING 12.50% ADDITIONS TOWARDS ALLEGED BOGUS PURCHASE FRO M THOSE PARTIES AND MADE ADDITIONS OF RS. 7,13,462/-. 6. AGGRIEVED BY THE ASSESSMENT ORDER, THE ASSESEE P REFERRED AN APPEAL BEFORE THE LD.CIT(A). BEFORE THE LD.CIT(A), THE ASSESSE HAS FILED ELABORATE WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS, ON THE ISSUE, WHICH HAS BEEN REPRODUCED AT PARA 4 ON PAGES 4 TO 5 OF LD.CIT(A) O RDER. THE SUM AND SUBSTANCE OF ARGUMENTS OF THE ASSESSEE BEFORE T HE LD.CIT(A) ARE THAT PURCHASE FROM THE ABOVE PARTY IS GENUINE, WHICH IS SUPPORTED BY NECESSARY EVIDENCES. THEREFORE, NO ADD ITIONS COULD BE MADE ON THE BASIS OF INFORMATION RECEIVED FROM THIR D PARTY. THE LD.CIT(A), AFTER CONSIDERING RELEVANT SUBMISSION OF THE ASSESSEE AND ALSO, BY FOLLOWING THE DECISION OF HONBLE GUJA RAT HIGH COURT, IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. SIMITH P. SHETH (356 ITR 451), UPHELD ADDITION MADE BY THE AO TOWARDS 12.50% PROFIT ON ALLEGED BOG US PURCHASES FROM THOSE PARTIES. THE RELEVANT FINDINGS OF THE LD .CIT(A) ARE AS UNDER:- 9.8 HAVING GONE THROUGH THE CASE LAWS CITED IN S UPPORT OF THE APPELLANT IN HIS SUBMISSIONS, IT IS SEEN THAT IN NONE OF THOS E CASES SO MUCH OF INVESTIGATION WAS DONE INCLUDING THOSE BY ANOTHER G OVERNMENT AUTHORITY, VIZ., MAHARASHTRA SALES TAX AUTHORITY BEFORE WHOM A FFIDAVIT WAS FILED STATING THAT ANY BOGUS BILLS WERE SUPPLIED WITHOUT DELIVERY OF GOODS. 9.9 HON'BLE GUJARAT HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS, SIMIT SHETH (2013] 38 TAXMAN. COM 385 (GUJ), HONBLE COURT (WHICH WAS RELIED BY THE AO FOR MAKING THE ADDITION) WAS SEIZED WITH A S IMILAR ISSUE WHERE THE AO HAD FOUND THAT SOME OF THE ALLEGED SUPPLIERS OF STEEL TO THE ASSESSES HAD NOT SUPPLIED ANY GOODS BUT HAD ONLY PROVIDED SA LE BILLS AND HENCE, PURCHASES FROM THE SAID PARTIES WERE HELD TO BE BOG US, THE A.O. IN THAT CASE ADDED THE ENTIRE AMOUNT OF PURCHASES TO GROSS PROFIT OF THE ASSESSES. LD. CIT(A) HAVING FOUND THAT THE ASSESSES HAD INDEED PURCHASED THOUGH NOT FROM NAMED PARTIES BUT OTHER P ARTIES FROM GREY MARKET, PARTIALLY SUSTAINED THE ADDITION AS PROBABL E PROFIT OF THE ASSESSES. ITA NOS.469 & 470/MUM/2019 PRITHVIRAJ S. BHANSALI 5 THE TRIBUNAL HOWEVER, SUSTAINED THE ADDITION TO THE EXTENT OF 12.5%, TAKING INTO ACCOUNT THE ABOVE FADS, THE HON'BLE GUJ ARAT HIGH COURT HELD THAT SINCE THE PURCHASES WERE NOT BOGUS, BUT WERE M ADE FROM PARTIES OTHER THAN THOSE MENTIONED IN BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS, ON LY THE PROFIT ELEMENT EMBEDDED IN SUCH PURCHASES COULD BE ADDED TO THE AS SESSEE'S INCOME AND AS SUCH NO QUESTION OF LAW AROSE IN SUCH ESTIMA TION. WHILE ARRIVING AT THE ABOVE CONCLUSION, THE HONBLE COURT ALSO RELIED ON THE DECISION IN THE CASE OF VJJAY M, MISTRY CONSTRUCTION LTD, 355 ITR 4 93 (GUJ) AND FURTHER APPROVED THE DECISION OF AHMADABAD BENCH, ITAT IN T HE CASE OF VIJAY PROTEINS 53 1TD 9.10 AS THE AO CONCLUDED THAT THE APPELLANT HAS N OT PURCHASED FROM THOSE PARTIES, BUT CONSIDERING THE FACTS OF THE CAS E THAT THE GOODS HAVE BEEN SOLD AND THE ASSESSEE OFFERED THE PROFIT ON SA LE FOR TAXATION, TREATED THE PURCHASES ARE FROM THE GREY MARKET AT A LOWER P RICE WHICH CARRIES HIGHER MARGIN OF PROFIT THAN THE ONE OFFERED TO TAX . IN THE DECISION OF HONBLE GUJARAT HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS, S IMTT SHETH 356 ITR 451 (GUJ) WHEREIN ALSO IT IS FOUND THAT SOME OF THE ALLEGED SUPPLIERS OF STEEL TO THE ASSESSEE HAD NOT SUPPLIED ANY GOODS BU T HAD ONLY PROVIDED SALE BILLS AND HENCE, PURCHASES FROM THE SAID PARTI ES WERE HELD TO BE BOGUS. THEE AO IN THAT CASE ADDED THE ENTIRE AMOUNT OF PURCHASES TO GROSS PROFIT OF THE ASSESSEE. LD. CFT(A) HAVING FOU ND THAT THE ASSESSES HAD INDEED PURCHASED THOUGH NOT FROM NAMED PARTIES BUT OTHER PARTIES FROM GREY MARKET, PARTIALLY SUSTAINED THE ADDITION AS PROBABLE PROFIT OF THE ASSESSEE. THE TRIBUNAL HOWEVER, SUSTAINED THE ADDIT ION TO THE EXTENT OF 12.5%- TAKING INTO ACCOUNT THE ABOVE FACTS, THE HON 'BLE GUJARAT HIGH COURT HELD THAT SINCE THE PURCHASES WERE NOT BOGUS, BUT WERE MADE FROM PARTIES OTHER THAN THOSE MENTIONED IN BOOKS OF ACCO UNTS, ONLY THE PROFIT ELEMENT EMBEDDED IN SUCH PURCHASES COULD BE ADDED T O THE ASSESSEE'S INCOME AND AS SUCH NO QUESTION OF LAW AROSE IN SUCH ESTIMATION. 9.11 IN THE PRESENT CASE ALSO, AO CONCLUDED THAT THE APPELLANT HAS NOT PURCHASED FROM THE PARTY AND ESTIMATED THE PROFIT P ERCENTAGE @12.5% ON SUCH PURCHASE AMOUNT. DURING THE APPELLATE PROCE EDINGS, AR IN HIS WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS PLEADED TO DELETE THE ADDITION, THOUGH THE AR ALSO CITED THE ABOVE SAID DECISION IN SUPPORT OF THEIR C ASE. I HAVE CAREFULLY CONSIDERED THE SUBMISSIONS. IT IS TRUE THAT AS PER THE ASSESSMENT ORDER, THE ADDITION OF ESTIMATION OF PROFIT @12,5% OF THE NON-GENUINE PURCHASES WAS MADE BASED ON THE DECISION OF THE HON'BLE GUJAR AT HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. SIMIT SHETH (2013) 356 ITR 451 (GUJ ), HON'BLE COURT ADOPTED THE PERCENTAGE IN VIEW OF THE BENEFIT THE A PPELLANT IS GETTING BY PURCHASING THE GOODS FROM THE GREY MARKET WITHOUT A BILL. THIS IS OVER AND ABOVE THE NORMAL GP EARNED BY THE APPELLANT IN THE BUSINESS. CONSIDERING ALL THE FACTS INTO CONSIDERATION AND TH E FACTS OF THE PRESENT CASE IS SIMILAR TO THE ABOVE CITED CASE AND THE AO ADOPTED THE SAME PERCENTAGE IN THE PRESENT CASE WHICH IS IN THE SAME LINE OF BUSINESS, THE ADDITION MADE BY THE AO IS CONFIRMED. APPEAL AN THE SE GROUNDS IS TREATED AS 'DISMISSED.' ITA NOS.469 & 470/MUM/2019 PRITHVIRAJ S. BHANSALI 6 7. WE HAVE HEARD BOTH THE PARTIES, PERUSED THE MATE RIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD AND GONE THROUGH ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIE S BELOW. WE FIND THAT THE LD. AO HAS MADE ADDITION TOWARDS 12.50% PR OFIT ON ALLEGED BOGUS PURCHASES ON THE GROUND THAT THE ASSESSEE IS ONE OF THE BENEFICIARY OF ACCOMMODATION ENTRIES OF BOGUS PURCH ASE BILLS ISSUED BY HAWALA DEALERS. ACCORDING TO THE LD. AO, ALTHOUG H ASSESEE HAS FILED CERTAIN BASIC EVIDENCES, BUT FAILED TO FILE F URTHER EVIDENCE IN THE BACKDROP OF CLEAR FINDING BY THE SALES TAX DEPARTME NT, MAHARASHTRA THAT THOSE PARTIES ARE INVOLVED IN PROVIDING ACCOMM ODATION ENTRIES WITHOUT ACTUAL DELIVERY OF GOODS. THE LD. AO HAD AL SO TAKEN SUPPORT FROM THE INVESTIGATION CONDUCTED DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, AS PER WHICH NOTICE ISSUED U/S 133(6) TO THE PARTIES WERE RETURNED UN-SERVED BY THE POSTAL AUTHORITIES. THEREFORE, HE CAME TO THE CONCLUSION THAT PURCHASES FROM THE SAID PARTIES ARE BOGUS IN NATURE. IT IS THE CONTENTIONS OF THE ASSES SEE BEFORE THE LOWER AUTHORITIES THAT PURCHASES FROM THE ABOVE PAR TY ARE SUPPORTED BY NECESSARY EVIDENCES. IT HAS FURNISHED ALL POSSIB LE EVIDENCES, INCLUDING BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS; STOCK DETAILS AND BANK STATEMENT TO PROVE THAT PAYMENT AGAINST SAID PURCHASES HAVE BEEN MADE THROUGH PROPER BANKING CHANNELS. 8 HAVING CONSIDERED ARGUMENTS OF BOTH THE PARTIES A ND ALSO, MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD, WE FIND THAT BOTH THE SIDES HAVE FAILED TO PROVE THE CASE IN THEIR FAVOUR WITH NECESSARY EV IDENCES. ALTHOUGH, ASSESSEE HAS FILED CERTAIN BASIC EVIDENCES, BUT FAI LED TO FILE FURTHER EVIDENCES TO CONCLUSIVELY PROVE PURCHASES TO THE SA TISFACTIONS OF THE LD.AO. AT THE SAME TIME, THE LD. AO HAD ALSO FAILE D TO TAKE THE INVESTIGATION TO A LOGICAL CONCLUSION BY CARRYING O UT NECESSARY ENQUIRES, BUT HE SOLELY RELIED UPON INFORMATION RE CEIVED FROM ITA NOS.469 & 470/MUM/2019 PRITHVIRAJ S. BHANSALI 7 INVESTIGATION WING, WHICH WAS FURTHER SUPPORTED BY INFORMATION RECEIVED FROM MAHARASHTRA SALES TAX DEPARTMENT. UN DER THESE CIRCUMSTANCES, IT IS DIFFICULT TO ACCEPT ARGUMENTS OF BOTH THE SIDES. FURTHER, IN A CASE WHERE PURCHASES ARE CONSIDERED T O BE PURCHASED FROM SUSPICIOUS/HAWALA DEALERS, VARIOUS HIGH COURTS AND TRIBUNALS HAD CONSIDERED AN IDENTICAL ISSUE IN LIGHT OF INVES TIGATION CARRIED OUT BY THE SALES TAX DEPARTMENT AND HELD THAT IN CASE O F PURCHASES CLAIMS TO HAVE MADE FROM ALLEGED HAWALA DEALERS, ON LY PROFIT ELEMENT EMBEDDED IN THOSE PURCHASES NEEDS TO BE TAX ED, BUT NOT TOTAL PURCHASE FROM THOSE PARTIES. THE HONBLE GUJA RAT HIGH COURT, IN THE CASE OF CIT VS SIMITH P.SHETH 356 ITR 451 HAD C ONSIDERED A SIMILAR ISSUE AND HELD THAT AT THE TIME OF ESTIMATI ON OF PROFIT FROM ALLEGED BOGUS PURCHASES NO UNIFORM YARDSTICKS COULD BE ADOPTED, BUT IT DEPENDS UPON FACTS OF EACH CASE. THE ITAT, M UMBAI, IN NUMBER OF CASES HAD CONSIDERED AN IDENTICAL ISSUE A ND DEPENDING UPON FACTS OF EACH CASE, DIRECTED THE LD.AO TO ESTI MATE GROSS PROFIT OF 10% TO 15% ON TOTAL ALLEGED BOGUS PURCHASES. IN THIS CASE, CONSIDERING THE NATURE OF BUSINESS OF THE ASSESSEE THE LD. AO HAS MADE ADDITION TOWARDS 12.50% PROFIT, WHICH HAS BEEN APPROVED BY THE LD.CIT(A). WE, FURTHER, NOTED THAT RATE OF PROF IT ADOPTED BY THE AO AS WELL AS THE LD. CIT(A) IS QUITE REASONABLE HA VING REGARD TO THE NATURE OF BUSINESS OF THE ASSESSEE. IN SOFAR AS THE ARGUMENTS OF THE LD. AR FOR THE ASSESSEE IN LIGHT OF DECISION OF HON BLE BOMBAY HIGH COURT IN CASE OF PCIT VS. MOHAMED HAJI ADAM & CO IN ITA NO. 1004 OF 2016 DATED 11-2-2019 AND FEW OTHER TRIBUNAL DECI SIONS THAT ADDITION ON ALLEGED BOGUS PURCHASES SHALL BE REQUIR ED TO BRING ON PAR WITH GP OF NORMAL PURCHASE, WE FIND THAT ISSUE OF ALLEGED NON GENUINENE PURCHASES IS PURELY A FACTUAL MATTER WHIC H NEEDS TO BE CONSIDERED IN LIGHT OF ITS OWN CASE AND HENCE, WE A RE OF THE ITA NOS.469 & 470/MUM/2019 PRITHVIRAJ S. BHANSALI 8 CONISDERED VIEW THAT IT IS INCORRECT ON THE PART OF THE LD. AR FOR THE ASSESSEE TO PLACE RELIANCE ON ANY CASE LAWS UNLESS IT IS PROVED BEYOND DOUBT THAT FACTS OF ITS CASE ARE SIMILAR TO CASE LAWS RELIED UPON BY THE PARTIES. IN THIS CASE, THE AR FOR THE ASSESSEE NEITHER MADE ANY ATTEMPT TO MEET THE FACTS OF CASE SITED BY HIM NOR FILED ANY DETAILS ABOUT GROSS PROFIT DECLARED FOR NORMAL PURCHASES. UNDER THSE FACTS, WE REJECT THE CASE LAW CITED BY THE LD. AR FOR THE ASSESSEE. THEREFORE, CONSIDERING FACTS AND CIRCUMST ANCES OF THIS CASE AND CONSISTENT WITH VIEW TAKEN BY THE CO-ORDIN ATE BENCH IN NUMBER OF CASES, WE ARE OF THE CONSIDERED OPINION T HAT THE LD. AOP AS WELL AS THE LD. CIT(A) HAVE TAKEN FAIRLY REASONA BLE VIEW AND ESTIMATED 12.50% PROFIT OF ALLEGED BOGUS PURCHASES. WE, THEREFORE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT THERE IS NO REASON TO INTERFER E WITH ORDERS OF THE CIT(A) AND HENCE, WE ARE INCLINED TO UPHOLD ORDER O F THE LD. CIT(A) AND DISMISS APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE. 9. IN THE RESULT, APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE FOR AY 2009-10 IS DISMISSED. ITA NO.470/MUM/2019 FOR AY 2011-12:- 10. THE FACTS AND ISSUES INVOLVED IN THIS APPEAL AR E IDENTICAL TO THE FACTS AND ISSUES, WHICH WE HAD CONSIDERED IN ITA NO . 469/MUM/2019 FOR AY 2009-10. THE REASONS GIVEN BY U S IN PRECEDING PARAGRAPHS IN ITA NO. 469/MUM/2019 FOR AY 2009-10 SHALL MUTATIS MUTANDIS APPLY TO THIS APPEAL, AS WELL. THEREFORE, FOR SIMILAR REASONS, WE DISMISS APPEAL FILED BY THE ASS ESSEE FOR AY 2011-12. ITA NOS.469 & 470/MUM/2019 PRITHVIRAJ S. BHANSALI 9 11. IN THE RESULT, APPEALS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE F OR BOTH AYS ARE DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON THIS 10/02/2 020 SD/- (SAKTIJIT DEY) SD/- (G. MANJUNATHA) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER MUMBAI ; DATED: 10/02/2020 THIRUMALESH SR.PS COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : BY ORDER, (ASSTT. REGISTRAR) ITAT, MUMBAI 1. THE APPELLANT 2. THE RESPONDENT. 3. THE CIT(A), MUMBAI. 4. CIT 5. DR, ITAT, MUMBAI 6. GUARD FILE. //TRUE COPY//