ITO - 27 (1)(1), MUMBAI V. AMIT CHANDULAL MEHTA, MUMBAI

ITA 5729/MUM/2018

• Counselvise Citation: [2019] 114 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 6116 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 11 month(s) 27 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 01-10-2019
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Assessment Year: 2009-2010
• Appeal Filed On: 05-10-2018
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: R BOOPATHI
• Keywords: Bogus purchase; Accommodation entries
• Section: 133(6); 145

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL SMC, BENCH M UMBAI BEFORE SHRI G. MANJUNATHA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER & SHRI RAM LAL NEGI, JUDICIAL MEM BER ITA NO.5729/MUM/2018 ( ASSESSMENT YEAR :2009-10 ) ITO-27(1)(1) TOWER NO.6, 4 TH FLOOR, ROOMNO.406 VASHI RAILWAY STATION COMPLEX VASHI, NAVI MUMBAI VS. AMIT CHANDULAL MEHTA A-4/43A, SHANTINIKETAN CHS, LBS MARG GHATKOPAR(W), MUMBAI-400 086 PAN/GIR NO. AAD PM2264K APPELLANT ) .. RESPONDENT ) & C.O. NO. 217/MUM/2019 (ARISING OUT OF ITA NO.5729/MUM/2018) (ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2009-10) AMIT CHANDULAL MEHTA A-4/43A, SHANTINIKETAN CHS, LBS MARG GHATKOPAR(W), MUMBAI-400 086 VS. ITO-27(1)(1) TOWER NO.6, 4 TH FLOOR, ROOMNO.406 VASHI RAILWAY STATION COMPLEX VASHI, NAVI MUMBAI PAN/GIR NO. AADPM2264K ( APPELLANT ) .. RESPONDENT ) REVENUE BY R. BOOPATHI ASSESSEE BY NEELKANTH KHANDELWAL DATE OF HEARING 0 1/10 /2019 DATE OF PRONOUNCEME NT 01 /10 /201 9 / O R D E R PER G.MANJUNATHA (A.M) : THIS APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE AND CROSS OBJECTI ON FILED BY THE ASSESSEE ARE DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER OF T HE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS)24, MUMBAI DATED 22/06/2018 AND THEY ITA NO.5729/MUM/2018 CO.NO.217/MUM/2019 AMIT CHANDULAL MEHTA. 2 PERTAINS TO THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2009-10. SINCE, THE FACTS ARE IDENTICAL AND ISSUES ARE COMMON. FOR THE SAKE OF CO NVENIENCE, THE APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE AND CROSS OBJECTION FIL ED BY ASSESSEE IS DISPOSED-OFF BY THIS CONSOLIDATED ORDER. ITA.NO.5729/MUM/2018:- 2. THE REVENUE HAS RAISED THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS OF APPEAL:- 1. ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND I N LAW, THE LD. CIT(A) ERRED IN DELETING THE ADDITION OF RS. 15,27,036 /-M ADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER ON ACCOUNT OF BOGUS PURCHASES, WITHOUT APPR ECIATING THE FACT THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD FAILED TO PRODUCE BILLS, VOUCHERS AND OTHER DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCES IN SUPPORT OF HIS CLAIM AND W ITHOUT CONSIDERING THE LATEST APEX COURT DECISION IN THE CASE OF N,K. PROTEIN LTD., WHEREIN IT IS HELD THAT ONCE IT IS PROVED THAT THE PURCHASES A RE BOGUS THEN ADDITION SHOULD BE MADE ON ENTIRE PURCHASE AND NOT ON PROFIT ELEMENT EMBEDDED IN SUCH PURCHASES. 2. ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CA SE AND IN LAW, THE LD. CIT(A) ERRED IN ESTIMATING THE PROFIT FROM HAWALA P URCHASES BY DISALLOWING ONLY RS.2,24,606 /- BEING 12.5% OF TOTA L PURCHASES AS EVEN THE BASIC ONUS OF PRODUCING TRANSPORT BILLS, DELIVE RY CHALLANS ETC, WERE NOT FULFILLED BY THE ASSESSEE. 3. THE APPELLANT PRAYS THAT THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A) ON THE ABOVE GROUNDS BE REVERSED AND THAT OF THE ASSESSING OFFIC ER BE RESTORED 4. THE APPELLANT CRAVES LEAVE TO AMEND OR ALT ER ANY GROUNDS OR ADD A NEW GROUND WHICH MAY BE NECESSARY. 3. THE BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT THE ASSES SEE IS ENGAGED IN THE BUSINESS OF TRADING IN IRON & STEEL, FILED H IS RETURN OF INCOME FOR AY 2009-10 ON 27/09/2009, DECLARING TOTAL INCOM E OF RS. 2,96,770/-. THEREAFTER, THE CASE HAS BEEN REOPENED U/S 147, ON THE BASIS OF INFORMATION RECEIVED FROM DGIT, INVESTIGAT ION, MUMBAI, AS PER WHICH, SALES TAX AUTHORITIES OF GOVERNMENT OF M AHARASHTRA HAD TAKEN ACTIONS AGAINST NUMBER OF HAWALA DEALERS, WH O HAD ISSUED ITA NO.5729/MUM/2018 CO.NO.217/MUM/2019 AMIT CHANDULAL MEHTA. 3 BOGUS PURCHASE BILLS TO VARIOUS PARTIES IN MUMBAI T O REDUCE OR SUPPRESS PROFITS. AS PER LIST OF BENEFICIARIES, TH E ASSESSEE IS ONE OF THE BENEFICIARY, WHO HAD TAKEN ACCOMMODATION BILLS OF BOGUS PURCHASES FROM VARIOUS PARTIES AS LISTED BY THE AO IN HIS ASSESSMENT ORDER AMOUNTING TO RS. 17,96,851/-. THE CASE WAS SELECTED FOR SCRUTINY AND THE ASSESSMENT HAS BEEN C OMPLETED U/S. 143(3).R.W.S. 147 OF THE I.T.ACT, 1961 ON 27/11/201 4 AND DETERMINED TOTAL INCOME OF RS. 20,68,560/-, AFTER MAKING 100% ADDITIONS TOWARDS ALLEGED BOGUS PURCHASE FROM THOSE PARTIES A ND MADE ADDITIONS OF RS. 17,51,642/-. 4. AGGRIEVED BY THE ASSESSMENT ORDER , THE ASSESEE PREFERRED AN APPEAL BEFORE THE LD.CIT(A), BEFORE THE LD.CIT(A), THE ASSESSE HAS REITRATED HIS SUBMISSIONS MADE BEFORE THE AO. THE S UM AND SUBSTANCE OF THE ARGUMENTS OF THE ASSESSEE BEFORE T HE LD.CIT(A) ARE THAT PURCHASE FROM THE ABOVE PARTIES 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, ON ANALYSIS OF INFORMATION COLLECTED DURI NG THE COURSE OF SEARCH IN CASE OF HAWALA DEALERS AND ALSO BY FOLLOW ING THE DECISION OF HONBLE GUJARAT HIGH COURT, IN THE CASE OF CIT V S. SIMITH P. SHETH (356 ITR 451) SCALED DOWN ADDITIONS TOWARDS ALLEGED BOGUS PURCHASES TO 12.50% PROFIT. THE RELEVANT FINDINGS O F THE LD.CIT(A) ARE AS UNDER:- ITA NO.5729/MUM/2018 CO.NO.217/MUM/2019 AMIT CHANDULAL MEHTA. 4 2.4 I HAVE GIVEN MY CAREFUL CONSIDERATION TO THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS, PERUSED THE MATERIAL ON RECORD AND DULY CONSIDERED THE FACTUAL MATRIX OF THE CASE AS ALSO THE APPLICABLE LEGAL POSITION. 2.4. 1 THE ONLY EFFECTIVE GROUND IS IN RESPECT OF T HE ACTION OF THE LD. AO IN NOT ACCEPTING THE PURCHASES OF RS 17,96,851/- AS GE NUINE PURCHASES BASED ON THE INFORMATION RECEIVED FROM INCOME TAX A UTHORITIES. BRIEFLY STATED THE APPELLANT IS A. COMPANY ENGAGED IN THE B USINESS OF TRADING LD. AO MADE THE ADDITION ON THE BASIS OF INFORMATION RE CEIVED FROM THE INVESTIGATION WING OF INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT, MUMBAI THAT THE SALES TAX DEPARTMENT HAD RECORDED THE STATEMENTS OF CERTAIN H AWALA OPERATORS WHO HAD CONFIRMED TO HAVE GIVEN BOGUS BILL TO CERTA IN ASSESSEE INCLUDING THE APPELLANT COMPANY. THE BOGUS BILL WAS IN RESPEC T OF 11 PARTIES. THE APPELLANT COMPANY WAS ASKED TO SUBMIT THE DETAIL OF PURPORTED PURCHASES MADE AND TO SHOW CAUSE WHY THE SAME SHOUL D NOT BE DISALLOWED AS BOGUS PURCHASES THE APPELLANT FILED T HEIR REPLY STATING THAT PURCHASES WERE MADE FROM REGULAR PARTIES SUPPORTED BY PROPER BILLS AND THE ACCOUNTING ENTRIES AND THE PAYMENTS WERE MADE B Y ACCOUNT PAYEE CHEQUES. THE LD AO WAS NO IN AGREEMENT WITH THE SUB MISSIONS OF THE APPELLANT AND OBSERVED THAT THE APPELLANT FAILED TO FURNISH THE SUPPORTING DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE TO ESTABLISH THAT THE PURCHASE WAS ACTUALLY MADE BY THEM FROM THESE PARTIES SUCH AS TRANSPORTATION D OCUMENTS. INWARD REGISTER ETC. THE INVESTIGATION WING OF MUMBAI HAD PROVIDED A LIST OF HAWALA BILL RACKETEERS WHO WERE INVOLVED IN ISSUING BILLS AND ALSO THE LIST OF BENEFICIARIES THE SALES TAX DEPARTMENT OF MUMBAI HAD INVESTIGATED ALL THESE CASES THOROUGHLY AND PREPARED A LIST OF S UCH HAWALA OPERATORS AND THEIR BENEFICIARIES WHICH HAVE BEEN UPLOADED IN THEIR WEBSITE. THE LD AO OBSERVED THAT THESE HAWALA OPERATORS WERE PRO VIDING ONLY ACCOMMODATION ENTRIES AND THE APPELLANT WAS ALSO AN THE LIST BENEFICIARIES. ACCORDINGLY, THE PEAK OF PURCHASES H AS BEEN WORKED OUT AFTER AMALGAMATING THE PURCHASES MADE FROM THE RESP ECTIVE PARTIES AND THE PEAK OF PURCHASES WORKS OUT TO RS.17,51,642/- A S BOGUS PURCHASE AND ADDED THE SAME TO THE TOTAL INCOME OF THE APPEL LANT. UNDER SIMILAR CIRCUMSTANCES THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT IN THE CASE OF SIMIT P SETH, 2013 (356 ITR 451) HAD ON OCCASION TO DELIVER ITS JUDGMENT BY CONFIRMING THE DECISION OF ME ITAT WHICH HAS ESTIMATED THE DISALLOWANCE AT 12.5% OF THE DISPUTED BOGUS PUR CHASES TO MEET THE END OF JUSTICE. THE HEAD-NOTE OF THE DECISION IS RE PRODUCED AS UNDER- 'SECTION 145 OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT. 1961- METHOD OF ACCOUNTING- ESTIMATION OF PROFITS [ BOGUS PURCHASES]- ASSESSMEN T YEAR 2006-7 ASSESSEE WAS ENGAGED IN BUSINESS OF TRADING IN STEE L! ON WHOLESALE BASIS-ASSESSING OFFICER HAVING FOUND THAT SOME ALLE GED SUPPLIERS OF STEEL TO ASSESSES HAD NOT SUPPLIED STEEL TO ASSESSEE BUT HAD ONLY PROVIDED SALE BILLS, HELD THAT PURCHASES MADE FROM SAID PART IES WERE BOGUS -HE ACCORDINGLY, ADDED ENTIRE AMOUNT PURCHASES TO GROSS PROFIT OF ASSESSEE- COMMISSIONER (APPEALS ) HAVING FOUND THAT ASSESSES HAD INDEED MADE PURCHASES THOUGH NOT FROM NAMED PARTIES BUT OTHER P ARTIES FROM GREY MARKET, SUSTAINED ADDITION TO EXTENT OF 30% OF PURC HASE COST AS PROBABLE PROFIT OF ASSESSEE- TRIBUNAL HOWEVER, SUSTAINED ADD ITION TO EXTENT OF ITA NO.5729/MUM/2018 CO.NO.217/MUM/2019 AMIT CHANDULAL MEHTA. 5 12.5%-WHETHER SINCE PURCHASES WERE NOT BOGUS BUT WE RE MADE FROM PARTIES OTHER THAN THOSE MENTIONED IN BOOKS O/ ACCO UNT, ONLY PROFIT ELEMENT EMBEDDED IN SUCH PURCHASES COULD BE ADDED T O ASSESSEE'S INCOME- HELD, YES WHETHER HENCE, ORDER OF TRIBUNAL NEEDED NO INTERFERENCE- HOLD, YES [PARAS 6,7 &9 ] [ IN FAVOUR OF ASSESSES/' [EMPHASIS SUPPLIED} BASED ON THE EVIDENCE IN HAND IN THE FORM OF A REPORT FROM DIT (INV), MUMBAI THE AO HAS ASKED THE ASSESSEE TO PROD UCE THE PARTIES ALONG WITH EVIDENCE IN ORDER TO VERIFY THE GENUINEN ESS OF HT PURCHASE TRANSACTIONS THE ASSESSEE INSTEAD SUBMITTED T HE LEDGER ACCOUNTS OF THE ABOVE PARTIES AND BANK STATEMENTS EX TRACTS EVIDENCING THE PAYMENTS THROUGH BANK CHEQUE IN THIS CASE, THE ONUS LIES ON THE ASSESSEE TO PROVE THE GENUINENESS OF THE PURCH ASES AND THE ASSESSEE HAD TO PROVE THAT THE SUPPLIERS WERE GENUI NELY EXISTING. THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT MADE ANY EFFORTS TO DISCHARGE THE ONUS AND FAILED TO PRODUCE ANY OF THE PARTIES, IN SPITE OF THE OPPORTU NITIES GIVEN BY THE LD AO THE ASSESSEE COULD NOT SATISFACTORILY SUBSTANT IATE AND ESTABLISH THE FACT THAT THERE WERE GENUINE PURCHASES FROM THESE P ARTIES. THERE WAS A REPORT FROM SIT(INV) SLATING THAT ALL THE SELLER PA RTIES AS PER THE LIST SUPPLIED BY THEM ARE BOGUS INCLUDING THE PARTIES AP PEARING IN THE BOOKS OF THE APPELLANT COMPANY AND AS STATED ABOV E, THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT MADE COUNTER SUBMISSION TO SHOW THAT THOSE PARTIES ARE REALLY EXISTING. THE AO HAS BROUGHT TO TAX THE BOGU S PURCHASES BY ADOPTING THE METHOD @ 100% OF SUCH PURCHASES KEEPI NG IN VIEW THE GAIN MADE BY THE APPELLANT DUE TO PURCHASES OF MATE RIAL IN GREY MARKET WITHOUT BILLS AND ADJUSTING THE PURCHASES WITH THE INVOICES TAKEN FROM THE HAWALA TRADERS UNDER DISCUSSIONS UNDER THESE CIR CUMSTANCES THE AO CANNOT BE FOUND FAULT ON THIS COUNT. EVEN THOUGH TH E AO COULD NOT PROVE SUBSTANTIVELY THAT THE AMOUNTS GIVEN TO THE SELLERS IN CHEQUE FROM HAVE CAME BACK TO THE APPELLANT, THE ACTIVITIES OF ACCOMMODATION ENTRIES IN THE TRADING COMMUNITY IS N OT UNHEARED OF. FURTHER, THE INVESTIGATIONS CARRIED OUT BY THE SALES TAX DEPARTMENT, ANOTHER GOVERNMENT AGENCY, WITH REGAR D TO VAT VIOLATION CANNOT BE LOST SIGHT OF FURTHER, AS SOME OF THE NAM ES OF THE SO-CALLED BOGUS SELLERS OUT OF THE LIST SUPPLIED BY THE SALES TAX DEPARTMENT ARE APPEARING IN THE BOOKS OF THE APPELLANT COMPANY, T HE FINK OF INVOLVEMENT OF APPELLANT COMPANY GETTING BOGUS BILL S IS ESTABLISHED EVEN THOUGH THERE ARE CATENA OF CASES DECIDED BY TH E JURISDICTIONAL ITAT WHISH HAVE DECIDED THE ISSUE IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE, THEY ARE NOT UNIFORM IN ALL THE CASES AS THEY WERE DECID ED AS PER FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THAT PARTICULAR CASE BEFORE THEM. I AM OF THE OPINION THAT THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE PRESENT CASE ARE MORE AKIN TO THE CASE DECIDED BY THE HON'BLE GUJARAT HIGH COURT M TH E CASE OF SIMIT P SETH (SUPRA) THEREFORE, I HEREBY CONFIRM THE DISALL OWANCE TO THE EXTENT 12.5% AMOUNTING TO RS2,24,606/- OF THE SO-CALLED BO GUS PURCHASES MADE BY THE LD AO THIS GROUND IS PARTLY ALLOWED. ITA NO.5729/MUM/2018 CO.NO.217/MUM/2019 AMIT CHANDULAL MEHTA. 6 5. 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 100% ADDITIONS TOWARDS ALL EGED BOGUS PURCHASES, ON THE GROUND THAT THE ASSESSEE IS ONE O F THE BENEFICIARY OF ACCOMMODATION ENTRIES OF BOGUS PURCHASE BILLS IS SUED BY HAWALA DEALERS. ACCORDING TO THE LD. AO, ALTHOUGH ASSESEE HAS FILED CERTAIN BASIC EVIDENCES, BUT FAILED TO FILE FURTHER EVIDENC E IN THE BACKDROP OF CLEAR FINDING BY THE SALES TAX DEPARTMENT, MAHARASH TRA THAT THOSE PARTIES ARE INVOLVED IN PROVIDING ACCOMMODATION ENT RIES WITHOUT ACTUAL DELIVERY OF GOODS. THE LD. AO HAD ALSO TAKEN SUPPORT FROM INVESTIGATION CONDUCTED DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESS MENT 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 PURCHASE FROM THE SAID PARTIES IS BOGUS IN NATURE. IT IS THE CONTENTIONS OF THE ASSESSEE BE FORE THE LOWER AUTHORITIES THAT PURCHASES FROM THE ABOVE PARTY ARE SUPPORTED BY NECESSARY EVIDENCES. IT HAS FURNISHED ALL POSSIBLE EVIDENCES, INCLUDING BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS, STOCK DETAILS AND BANK STATEMENT TO PROVE THAT PAYMENT AGAINST SAID PURCHASES HAVE BEEN MADE THROUGH PROPER BANKING CHANNELS. 6 HAVING CONSIDERED ARGUMENTS OF BOTH SIDES AND ALS O, MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD, WE FIND THAT BOTH THE SIDES FA ILED TO PROVE THE CASE IN THEIR FAVOUR WITH NECESSARY EVIDENCES. ALTH OUGH, ASSESSEE HAS FILED CERTAIN BASIC EVIDENCES, BUT FAILED TO FI LE FURTHER EVIDENCES TO CONCLUSIVELY PROVE PURCHASES TO THE SATISFACTION S OF THE LD.AO. AT THE SAME TIME, THE LD. AO HAD ALSO FAILED TO TAKE T HE INVESTIGATION TO A LOGICAL CONCLUSION BY CARRYING OUT NECESSARY ENQU IRES, BUT HE ITA NO.5729/MUM/2018 CO.NO.217/MUM/2019 AMIT CHANDULAL MEHTA. 7 SOLELY RELIED UPON INFORMATION RECEIVED FROM INVES TIGATION WING, WHICH WAS FURTHER SUPPORTED BY INFORMATION RECEIVED FROM MAHARASHTRA SALES TAX DEPARTMENT. UNDER THESE CIRC UMSTANCES, IT IS DIFFICULT TO ACCEPT ARGUMENTS OF BOTH THE SIDES. FURTHER, VARIOUS HIGH COURTS AND TRIBUNALS HAD CONSIDERED AN IDENTIC AL ISSUE IN LIGHT OF INVESTIGATION CARRIED OUT BY THE SALES TAX DEPA RTMENT AND HELD THAT IN CASE PURCHASES CLAIMS TO HAVE BEEN MADE FRO M ALLEGED HAWALA DEALERS , ONLY PROFIT ELEMENT EMBEDDED IN TH OSE PURCHASES NEEDS TO BE TAXED, BUT NOT TOTAL PURCHASE FROM THOS E PARTIES. THE HONBLE GUJARAT HIGH COURT, IN THE CASE OF CIT VS S IMITH P.SHETH 356 ITR 451 HAD CONSIDERED A SIMILAR ISSUE AND HELD THAT AT THE TIME OF ESTIMATION OF PROFIT FROM ALLEGED BOGUS PURCHASE S NO UNIFORM YARDSTICKS COULD BE ADOPTED, BUT IT DEPENDS UPON FA CTS OF EACH CASE. THE ITAT, MUMBAI, IN NUMBER OF CASES HAD CONSIDERED AN IDENTICAL ISSUE AND DEPENDING UPON FACTS OF EACH CASE, DIRECT ED THE LD.AO TO ESTIMATE PROFIT OF 10 TO 15% ON TOTAL ALLEGED BOGUS PURCHASES. IN THIS CASE, CONSIDERING THE NATURE OF BUSINESS OF THE ASS ESSEE THE LD. AO HAS MADE 100% ADDITION, WHEREAS THE LD.CIT(A) HAS S CALED DOWN ADDITION TO 12.50% PROFIT ON TOTAL ALLEGED BOGUS PU RCHASE. ALTHOUGH, BOTH AUTHORITIES HAVE TAKEN DIFFERENT VIEW FOR ESTI MATION OF INCOME FROM ALLEGED BOGUS PURCHASE, BUT NO ONE COULD SUPPO RT SAID METHOD WITH NECESSARY EVIDENCES OR ANY COMPARABLE CASES. T HEREFORE, CONSIDERING FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THIS CASE AN D ALSO CONSISTENT WITH VIEW TAKEN BY THE CO-ORDINATE BENCH IN NUMBER OF CASES, WE ARE OF THE CONSIDERED OPINION THAT THE LD. CIT(A) H AS TAKEN ONE OF THE POSSIBLE METHOD TO SETTLE DISPUTE BETWEEN THE PARTI ES AND ACCORDINGLY ESTIMATED 12.50% PROFIT ON ALLEGED BOGU S PURCHASE. NEITHER THE ASSESSEE NOR THE REVEUNE CONTRVERTED FI NDINGS OF FACTS ITA NO.5729/MUM/2018 CO.NO.217/MUM/2019 AMIT CHANDULAL MEHTA. 8 RECORDED BY THE LD. CIT(A) AND HENCE, WE ARE INCLIN ED TO UPHOLD ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A) AND DISMISSED APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE.. 7. IN THE RESULT, APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE IS DI SMISSED. C.O.NO.217/MUM/2019:- 8. THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED CROSS OBJECTION AGAINST O RDER OF THE LD.CIT(A) AND CHALLENGED 12.5% PROFIT ESTIMATED ON ALLEGED BOGUS PURCHASES, ON THE GROUND THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD ALRE ADY INCLUDED GROSS PROFIT OF 4.09% ON ALLEGED BOGUS PURCHASES. T HEREFORE, FURTHER ADDITION OF 12.5% ON SAID BOGUS PURCHASES IS EXCESS IVE AND UNREASONABLE. WE FIND THAT THE TRIBUNAL HAS UPHELD FINDINGS OF THE LD. CIT(A) IN ESTIMATE GROSS PROFIT OF 12.50% ON AL LEGED BOGUS PURCHASES IN APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE. THEREFOR E, WE ARE OF THE CONSIDERED VIEW THAT THERE IS NO MERIT IN CROSS OBJ ECTION FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AND HENCE, CROSS OBJECTION FILED BY THE AS SESSEE IS ALSO DISMISSED. 9. AS A RESULT, APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE IS DISM ISSED AND CROSS OBJECTION FILED BY THE ASSESEE IS ALSO DISMISSED. ITA NO.5729/MUM/2018 CO.NO.217/MUM/2019 AMIT CHANDULAL MEHTA. 9 ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON THIS 01 /10/ 2019 SD/- (RAM LAL NEGI) SD/- (G. MANJUNATHA) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER MUMBAI ; DATED 01/10/2019 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//