The ACIT, Central Circle-1(1), Ahmedabad V. M/s. Deep Cotton Industries, Patan

ITA 948/AHD/2012

• Counselvise Citation: [2017] 127 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 8215 (ITAT-AHMEDABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 5 year(s) 6 month(s) 1 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 02-11-2017
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Next Hearing Date: 12-07-2017
• Assessment Year: 2008-2009
• Appeal Filed On: 01-05-2012
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Assessee Lawyers: M J SHAH
• Keywords: Bogus purchase; Business income; Income from undisclosed sources; Principle of natural justice; Cost of acquisition; Initiation of penalty proceedings
• Section: 133A

Judgement Text

, , IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL A BENCH, AHMEDABAD .., , BEFORE SHRI S.S. GODARA, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI PRADIP KUMAR KEDIA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER 1. ./ I.T.A. NO.948/AHD/2012 2. ./ I.T.A. NO.1460/AHD/2012 ( / AY : 2008-09) 1.ACIT CENTRAL CIRLE-1(1) AHMEDABAD 2. M/S.DEEP COTTON INDUSTRIES PROP.OF NITESH GUNVANTLAL THAKKAR DIST.PATAN-384 240 / VS. 1. DEEP COTTON INDUSTRIES PROP.OF NITESH GUNVANTILAL THAKKAR JASKA ROAD, HARJI, DIST.PATAN -384 240 2. THE ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1) AHMEDABAD $ ./ ./ PAN/GIR NO. : ADWPT 3924 H ( $' / APPELLANTS ) .. ( ($' / RESPONDENTS ) REVENUE BY : SHRI K.MADHUSUDAN, SR.DR A SSESSEE BY : SHRI M.J. SHAH, AR )*+, / DATE OF HEARING 22/09/2017 -./+, / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT 02/ 11 /2017 / O R D E R PER PRADIP KUMAR KEDIA - AM: THE CAPTIONED CROSS-APPEALS BY THE REVENUE AND AS SESSEE ARE DIRECTED AGAINST THE COMMON ORDER OF THE COMMISSION ER OF INCOME TAX ITA NOS.948 & 1460/AHD/2012 ACIT VS. DEEP COTTON INDUSTRIES (CROSS) ASST.YEAR 2008-09 - 2 - (APPEALS)-I, AHMEDABAD [CIT(A) IN SHORT] DATED 26/03/2012 EMANATING FROM THE ASSESSMENT ORDER PASSED UNDER S.143(3) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 (HEREINAFTER REFERRED TO AS 'THE ACT') DATED 1 0/12/2010 RELEVANT TO ASSESSMENT YEAR (AY) 2008-09 RESPECTIVELY. REVENUES APPEAL IN ITA NO.948/AHD/2012 AY 2008-09 2. THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL RAISED BY THE REVENUE RE AD AS UNDER:- 1) THE LD.CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS IN D ELETING THE ADDITION OF RS.1,57,12,258/- OUT OF TOTAL ADDITION OF RS.2,09,49,678/- MADE ON ACCOUNT OF BOGUS PURCHASES . 2) ON FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE A ND IN LAW, THE CIT(A) OUGHT TO HAVE UPHELD THE ENTIRE ADDITION OF RS.2,09,49,678/- MADE ON ACCOUNT OF BOGUS PURCHASES . ASSESSEES APPEAL IN ITA NO.1460/AHD/2012 AY 2008 -09 3. LIKEWISE, GROUNDS OF APPEAL RAISED BY THE ASSE SSEE IS ALSO REPRODUCED HEREUNDER: 1. THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS ERRED IN LAW AS WELL AS ON FACTS BY MAKING ADDITION AMOUNTING TO RS.2,09,49,678/- ON AC COUNT OF BOGUS PURCHASES AND THE LD.CIT(APPEALS) HAS ALSO ER RED IN LAW AS WELL AS ON FACTS BY CONFIRMING THE ADDITIONS TO THE EXTENT OF RS.52,37,420/- @25% OF THE TOTAL ADDITION MADE BY T HE ASSESSING OFFICER. 2. THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS ERRED IN LAW AS WELL AS O N FACTS BY ACCEPTING THE STATEMENT RECORDED BY THE THIRD PARTY AS A EVIDENCE FOR THE BOGUS PURCHASE AND AGAIN THE CIT(A PPEALS) HAS ERRED IN LAW BY CONFIRMING THE SAME AS A VALID EVIDENCE. ITA NOS.948 & 1460/AHD/2012 ACIT VS. DEEP COTTON INDUSTRIES (CROSS) ASST.YEAR 2008-09 - 3 - 3. THE LD.CIT(APPEALS) HAS ERRED IN LAW AS WELL AS ON FACTS BY APPLYING THE RATE OF 25% OF THE ALLEGED BOGUS PURCH ASES FOR CONFIRMING THE BOGUS PURCHASES WITHOUT ANY SPECIFIC EVIDENCE OR LAW. 4. THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS ERRED IN LAW AS WELL AS O N FACTS BY INITIATION OF PENALTY PROCEEDINGS U/S.271(1)(C) FOR CONCEALMENT OF INCOME WITHOUT ANY SPECIFIC EVIDENCE OR LAW. 4. SINCE BOTH THE APPEALS ARE INTER-CONNECTED AND C ONCERNS THE COMMON ISSUE OF ADDITION TOWARDS BOGUS PURCHASES, B OTH THE APPEALS ARE DISPOSED OF TOGETHER. 5. BRIEFLY STATED, THE ASSESSEE A PROPRIETOR OF M /S.DEEP COTTON INDUSTRIES IS ENGAGED IN THE BUSINESS OF COTTON TRA DING AND PROCESSING AND OTHER FOOD GRAINS ITEMS. A SURVEY ACTION UNDER S. 133A OF THE ACT WAS CARRIED OUT AT THE BUSINESS PREMISES OF THE ASSESSE E ON 01/09/2008 IN CONJUNCTION WITH OTHER SEARCH AND SURVEY ACTIONS AT THE PREMISES OF EDIBLE OIL MILLS GROUP OF PATAN DISTRICT AND AG ENTS/BROKERS OF MEHSANA AND SABARKANTHA DISTRICT OF GUJARAT. SUBSE QUENT TO SURVEY, THE ASSESSEE FILED RETURN OF INCOME FOR AY 2008-09 ON 3 0/09/2009 DECLARING A TOTAL INCOME OF RS.1,49,610/-. THE RETURN FILED BY THE ASSESSEE WAS SUBJECTED TO SCRUTINY ASSESSMENT. IT WAS OBSERVED BY THE AO THAT IN THE COURSE OF SEARCH PROCEEDINGS AND SURVEY PROCEEDINGS IN THE CASE OF EDIBLE OIL MILLS GROUP, IT WAS FOUND THAT ONE M/S .VISHAL TRADERS VIRPUR, DIST.KHEDA HAD ISSUED BOGUS/ADJUSTMENT BILL S TO A LARGE NUMBER OF CONCERNS OF MEHSANA AND PATAN DISTRICTS OF GUJAR AT DURING FINANCIAL ITA NOS.948 & 1460/AHD/2012 ACIT VS. DEEP COTTON INDUSTRIES (CROSS) ASST.YEAR 2008-09 - 4 - YEAR 2006-07 ONWARDS. THE ASSESSEE IS ONE OF THE BENEFICIARIES OF SUCH ACCOMMODATION BILLS. THE AO NOTED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS SHOWN PURCHASE OF RS.2,09,49,678/- FROM M/S.VISHAL TRADER S DURING THE FINANCIAL YEAR RELEVANT TO AY 2008-09. THE AO ALSO OBSERVED THAT A STATEMENT OF THE PROPRIETOR OF M/S.VISHAL TRADERS S HRI DHARMENDRA J.PANDYA WAS RECORDED UNDER S.131 OF THE ACT WHERE HE CATEGORICALLY ADMITTED THAT THE AFORESAID PROPRIETORSHIP CONCERN WAS NOT IN EXISTENCE SINCE LAST TWO YEARS AND BILLS ISSUED WERE BOGUS/AD JUSTMENT BILLS ONLY. IT WAS FURTHER CONFESSED BY THE PURPORTED SUPPLIER THA T HE HAS NOT DELIVERED ANY GOODS LIKE OIL SEEDS, OIL CAKES OR ANY OTHER IT EM MENTIONED IN THE BILL TO VARIOUS PARTIES INCLUDING THE ASSESSEE. THE TRA NSPORTATION DETAILS LIKE VEHICLE NUMBERS WRITTEN ON THE BILL ETC. WERE ALSO ADMITTED AS FICTITIOUS. IT WAS FURTHER DEPOSED BY THE PROPRIETOR THAT ONE S HRI MADANLAL L.SHAH (CHANDAK) HAD INTRODUCED ALL THE PARTIES TO HIM. I T WAS POINTED OUT THAT THE BOGUS BILLS WERE ISSUED TO VARIOUS CONCERNS TOW ARDS FICTITIOUS SUPPLY IN LIEU OF COMMISSION PAYMENTS EARNED BY HIM. THE AO NEXT OBSERVED THAT ON PERUSAL OF THE BANK STATEMENT OF THE SUPPLI ER, A CONTINUOUS PATTERN OF DEPOSIT AND IMMEDIATE CASH WITHDRAWAL THEREAFTER IS SEEN. THE AO OBSERVED THAT SUCH A PATTERN OF DEPOSIT AND IMMEDIA TE WITHDRAWAL IN CASH IS UNTYPICAL OF BUSINESS OF ANY CONCERN WHICH IS REALLY ENGAGED IN MANUFACTURING/TRADING RELATED TO EDIBLE OIL BUSINES S. IT WAS THUS HELD THAT THE STATEMENT OF THE SUPPLIER WAS THUS SUBSTANTIATE D BY CONTINUOUS PATTERN OF DEPOSIT AND WITHDRAWAL. THE AO FURTHER OBSERVED THAT THE STATEMENT ITA NOS.948 & 1460/AHD/2012 ACIT VS. DEEP COTTON INDUSTRIES (CROSS) ASST.YEAR 2008-09 - 5 - OF PROPRIETOR WAS CONFIRMED IN THE STATEMENT OF SHR I MADANLAL L.SHAH DATED 22/09/2010. IN THE AFORESAID STATEMENT INTER MEDIARY SHRI MADANLAL L.SHAH HAS STATED THAT HE HAD INTRODUCED V ARIOUS TRADERS TO PURPORTED SUPPLIER WHO ONLY ISSUED BOGUS ADJUSTMENT BILLS WITHOUT ANY DELIVERY OF GOODS. IN THIS REGARD, THE STATEMENT OF SHRI KAMLESHBHAI G.THAKKAR (POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER OF THE ASSESSEE ) DATED 10/10/2008 WAS ALSO TAKEN INTO ACCOUNT BY THE AO WHEREBY IT WA S STATED BY THE POA DOES NOT POSSESS ANY PROOF TO SUPPORT SUPPLY SUCH A S GATE PASS LR RECEIPTS, CHALLANS OR VOUCHERS IN RESPECT OF GOODS PURCHASED. THE CLAIM OF ASSESSEE IS DEPENDANT ONLY ON BILL ISSUED BY SUP PLIER. THE AO ALSO NOTICED THAT IN SPITE OF SEVERAL OPPORTUNITIES THER EAFTER, THE ASSESSEE COULD NOT PRODUCE ANY EVIDENCE TO CORROBORATE ACTUAL DELI VERY OF SUPPLY. THE AO ALSO NOTED THAT SHRI MADANLAL L.SHAH WAS ALSO CR OSS-EXAMINED ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE. THE COPY OF THE PROCEEDING S RECORDED WERE ALSO PROVIDED TO THE ASSESSEE WHICH HAS REMAINED UNCOUNT ERED. THE AO FINALLY NOTED THAT IN SPITE OF NUMBER OF OPPORTUNIT IES GRANTED TO THE ASSESSEE TO EXPLAIN THE ISSUE OF BOGUS PURCHASES/AC COMMODATION ENTRIES, THE ASSESSEE HAS FAILED TO DISCHARGE THE ONUS LAY U PON HIM. THE PURCHASE REGISTER/SALE REGISTER/STOCK REGISTER FOR THE RELEV ANT PERIOD WERE NOT PRODUCED NOR QUANTITATIVE CORRELATION BETWEEN PURCH ASE AND SALES TOGETHER WITH YIELD PERCENTAGE, WASTAGE RATIO AND P OWER CONSUMPTION WAS PROVIDED. IN VIEW OF THESE AFORESAID FACTS, TH E AO PROCEEDED TO DISALLOW THE CLAIM OF EXPENDITURE TOWARDS ALLEGED B OGUS PURCHASES FROM ITA NOS.948 & 1460/AHD/2012 ACIT VS. DEEP COTTON INDUSTRIES (CROSS) ASST.YEAR 2008-09 - 6 - VISHAL TRADERS AMOUNTING TO RS.2,09,49,678/- AND AD DED TO THE SAME TO THE TOTAL INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE. 6. AGGRIEVED, THE ASSESSEE PREFERRED THE APPEAL BE FORE THE CIT(A). 7. THE CIT(A) RE-EXAMINED THE ISSUE AND OBTAINED RE MAND REPORT FROM THE AO. THE COPY OF PURCHASE/SALE REGISTER, QUANTITATIVE TALLY OF ITEMS PURCHASED, CONSUMED AND SOLD WAS STATED TO BE SUBMITTED BEFORE THE CIT(A). THE CIT(A) TOOK NOTE OF THE STATEMENT MADE BY THE SUPPLIER ADVERSE TO THE ASSESSEE AND FINALLY ARRIVED AT THE CONCLUSION THAT THE IMPUGNED TRANSACTIONS WITH M/S.VISHAL TRADERS ARE O NLY AN EYE-WASH AND THE BILLS ISSUED BY THE PURPORTED SUPPLIER ARE IN E FFECT ACCOMMODATION BILLS. THE CIT(A) HOWEVER, OBSERVED THAT WHILE THE PURCHASES WERE NOT MADE FROM M/S.VISHAL TRADERS, THE EXISTENCE OF PURC HASES CANNOT BE REJECTED. THE PURCHASES WERE PROBABLY MADE FROM OT HER FARMERS/CULTIVATORS WHO ARE UNREGISTERED DEALERS. THE CIT(A) ACCORDINGLY CONCLUDED THAT PURCHASE COSTS RECORDED BY THE ASSESSEE ARE INFLATED. IN THIS BACKGROUND, THE CIT(A) ESTIMATED ADDITION TO THE EXTENT OF 25% ON ACCOUNT OF IMPUGNED BOGUS PURCHASES BY A PPLYING THE BROAD PRINCIPLES LAID DOWN BY THE HONBLE GUJARAT HIGH CO URT IN THE CASE OF SANJAY OILCAKE INDUSTRIES (2009) 316 ITR 274 (GUJ.) . THE CIT(A) ACCORDINGLY DIRECTED THE AO TO SCALE DOWN AND RESTR ICT THE ADDITION MADE TOWARDS BOGUS PURCHASES FROM M/S.VISHAL TRADERS TO THE EXTENT OF 25% ITA NOS.948 & 1460/AHD/2012 ACIT VS. DEEP COTTON INDUSTRIES (CROSS) ASST.YEAR 2008-09 - 7 - OF RS.2,09,49,678/- WHICH COMES TO RS.52,37,420/-. THE BALANCE ADDITION TO THE EXTENT OF 75% WAS THUS DELETED. 8. BOTH AO AS WELL AS THE ASSESSEE ARE AGGRIEVED BY THE PARTIAL RELIEF GRANTED BY THE CIT(A). WHILE THE AO, ON ONE HAND, HAS CHALLENGED THE DIRECTION TO DELETE 75% OF THE BOGUS PURCHASES MADE FROM M/S.VISHAL TRADERS, THE ASSESSEE WAS IMPUGNED THE SUSTENANCE T O THE EXTENT OF 25% OF ALLEGED BOGUS PURCHASE. 9. THE LD.DR FOR THE REVENUE SUBMITTED AT THE OUTSE T THAT THE FACTS OF THE CASE ARE GROSS, WORSE AND PECULIAR. IT IS A MA TTER OF FACT ON RECORD THAT THE SO-CALLED SUPPLIER M/S.VISHAL TRADERS IS FOUND TO HAVE ISSUED ACCOMMODATION BILLS TO THE ASSESSEE AND IS A BOGUS SUPPLIER. THE FACTS WERE UNRAVELED DUE TO STRENUOUS ACTION OF SURVEY U NDER S.133A OF THE ACT AND CONSEQUENT UNEQUIVOCAL STATEMENT DEPOSED BY THE SUPPLIERS AS WELL AS THE INTRODUCER SHRI MADANLAL L.SHAH. SHRI M.L.SHAH WAS ALSO CROSS-EXAMINED BY THE REPRESENTATIVE OF THE ASSESSE E WITHOUT ANY SUCCESS. THE ASSESSEE COULD NOT SUBSTANTIATE THE ALLEGED FAC T OF PURCHASE FROM SUPPLIER M/S.VISHAL TRADERS BY PRODUCING LORRY RECE IPTS ETC. THE PAYMENT MADE BY THE ASSESSEE TOWARDS THE PURPORTED SUPPLY WAS FOUND TO BE WITHDRAWN IMMEDIATELY IN CASH. THESE FACTS WHEN READ TOGETHER GIVES AN UNAMBIGUOUS AND UNFLINCHING IMPRESSION OF ASSESS EE INDULGING IN CAMOUFLAGING THE BOOK RESULTS BY INTRODUCING BOGUS BILLS. THE LD.DR ITA NOS.948 & 1460/AHD/2012 ACIT VS. DEEP COTTON INDUSTRIES (CROSS) ASST.YEAR 2008-09 - 8 - SUBMITTED THAT THE CIT(A) OUGHT NOT TO HAVE GIVEN A NY RELIEF TO THE ASSESSEE BASED ON SYMBOLIC BILLS OBTAINED FROM THE FICTITIOUS SUPPLIER FOR SET PURPOSES. TO BUTTRESS ITS CASE, THE LD.DR RELI ED UPON THE DECISION OF HONBLE GUJARAT HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF N.K.INDUS TRIES LTD. VS. DY.CIT (2016) 292 CTR 354(GUJ.). HE ACCORDINGLY UR GED THE TRIBUNAL TO REVERSE THE ACTION OF THE CIT(A) GRANTING THE RE LIEF AND RESTORE THE ORDER OF THE AO. 10. THE LD.AR FOR THE ASSESSEE, ON THE OTHER HAND, CHALLENGED THE SUSTENANCE OF DISALLOWANCE OF RS.52,37,420/- OUT OF PURCHASES MADE FROM M/S.VISHAL TRADERS. THE LD.AR SUBMITTED THA T THE REVENUE HAS WRONGLY PLACED RELIANCE ON THE STATEMENT OF THE THI RD PARTY TO DRAW INFERENCE AGAINST THE ASSESSEE IN VIOLATION OF PRIN CIPLES OF NATURAL JUSTICE. THE LD.AR ALSO SIMULTANEOUSLY PLEADED THAT ESTIMATI ON OF 25% OF ALLEGED BOGUS PURCHASE TOWARDS ALLEGED SUPPRESSED I NCOME IS HIGHLY EXCESSIVE AND NOT IN ACCORD WITH DECISION OF HONBL E GUJARAT HIGH COURT IN PR.CIT VS. JAGDISH H.PATEL (2017) 84 TAXMANN.COM 259 (GUJ.) WHERE GROSS PROFIT RATE OF 8% ON PURCHASES WAS ESTIMATED TOWARDS BOGUS PURCHASES BY TRIBUNAL WAS APPROVED. THE LD.AR ALSO REFERRED TO THE DECISION OF THE COORDINATE BENCH OF THE TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF SHRI JAGDISH H.PATEL VS. ACIT IN ITA NOS.582 & 610/AHD/2 012 ORDER DATED 14/03/2016 WHERE ADDITION OF 8% WAS ESTIMATED TO ME ET THE ENDS OF JUSTICE. THE LD.AR SUBMITTED THAT IN THE AFORESAID CASE BEFORE THE ITA NOS.948 & 1460/AHD/2012 ACIT VS. DEEP COTTON INDUSTRIES (CROSS) ASST.YEAR 2008-09 - 9 - TRIBUNAL, THE SUPPLIER WAS THE SAME I.E. M/S.VISHAL TRADERS. THE LD.AR THEREAFTER REFERRED TO THE DECISION OF THE HONBLE GUJARAT HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF N.K. INDUSTRIES LTD.(SUPRA) CITED ON B EHALF OF THE REVENUE AND SUBMITTED THAT THE LD.DR HAS MISUNDERSTOOD THE CONCLUSION OF DISMISSAL ARRIVED AT BY THE HONBLE GUJARAT HIGH CO URT. THE LD.AR SUBMITTED THAT ADDITION ON ACCOUNT OF BOGUS PURCHAS ES WAS RETAINED AT 25% ONLY BY THE ITAT WHICH WAS SUBJECT MATTER OF C ONSIDERATION BEFORE HONBLE HIGH COURT UNDER S.260A OF THE ACT.AS AGAIN ST THE CLAIM OF THE REVENUE THAT ENTIRE AMOUNT SHOULD BE DISALLOWED. 11. WE HAVE CAREFULLY CONSIDERED RIVAL SUBMISSIONS. THE CONTROVERSY REVOLVES AROUND THE QUANTIFICATION OF DISALLOWANCE ON ACCOUNT OF BOGUS PURCHASES. WE STRAIGHT AWAY NOTICE FROM PARA-9 OF THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A) WHERE IT WAS RECORDED THAT THE AO HIMSELF HA S ACCEPTED THAT WHILE PURCHASE BILLS FROM M/S.VISHAL TRADERS ARE AD JUSTED BILLS BUT THE PURCHASES PER SE ARE NOT BOGUS. THIS IMPLIES THAT THE AO HIMSELF H AS ADMITTED THE FACT OF EXISTENCE OF PURCHASE ALBEIT F ROM UNREGISTERED DEALERS WHO DO NOT HAVE BILL BOOKS. SIMULTANEOUSLY , THE CORRESPONDING SALES HAVE ALSO NOT BEEN DISPUTED. NOTICEABLY, THE ASSESSEE HAS RECORDED TOTAL SALES TO THE TUNE OF RS.323.43 LAKHS DURING T HE YEAR AND RECORDED PURCHASE OF RS.401.88 LAKHS INCLUDING IMPUGNED PURC HASES OF RS.209.49 LAKHS FROM M/S.VISHAL TRADERS. APPARENTLY, IN THE ABSENCE OF ACTUAL PURCHASES MADE FROM UNKNOWN UNREGISTERED DEALERS, I T WILL NOT BE ITA NOS.948 & 1460/AHD/2012 ACIT VS. DEEP COTTON INDUSTRIES (CROSS) ASST.YEAR 2008-09 - 10 - POSSIBLE TO RECORD THE STAGGERING SALES. THUS, THE FACT OF PURCHASES MADE FROM UNIDENTIFIED OTHER SOURCE CANNOT BE DENIED ON WHOLESOME BASIS. THEREFORE, IN OUR VIEW, THE CIT(A) HAS CORRECTLY AP PRECIATED THE FACTS AND GRANTED RELIEF TOWARDS ACTUAL PURCHASES. 12. THE SECOND LIMB OF THE DISPUTE IS TOWARDS ESTIM ATION AND QUANTIFICATION OF INFLATED PURCHASES ELEMENT. THE CIT(A) HAS ESTIMATED 25% TOWARDS POSSIBLE INFLATION OF THE QUANTUM OF PU RCHASE AND DREW SUPPORT FOR SUCH ESTIMATION FROM THE DECISION OF TH E HONBLE GUJARAT HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF SANJAY OILCAKE INDUSTRIES (SUPRA). THE ASSESSEE, ON THE OTHER HAND, SEEKS LOWER ESTIMATION ON THE BASIS OF ANOTHER DECISION OF THE HONBLE GUJARAT HIGH COURT IN JAGDISH H. PATEL(SUPRA) WHEREBY THE ESTIMATION OF 8% DETERMINE D BY THE TRIBUNAL WAS APPROVED. CONTEXTUALLY, WE FIND THAT THE ASSES SEE HAS REMAINED DEFIANT DESPITE SUBSTANTIVE EVIDENCE ON RECORD WHIC H UNMASKED THE FICTITIOUS OR ACCOMMODATION BILLS. THE PROBABLE PU RCHASES MADE FROM UNREGISTERED DEALERS WERE DISGUISED BY WAY OF ACCOM MODATION BILLS FROM M/S.VISHAL TRADERS. THE ACCOMMODATION BILLS ACCOUN T FOR MORE THAN 50% OF THE TOTAL PURCHASES. THEREFORE, THE ASSESSE E CLEARLY HAS INDULGED IN SUBVERTING FACTS AND ATTEMPTED TO LESSEN THE TAX BURDEN IN A BRAZEN MANNER. THE ESTIMATION OF POSSIBLE EVASION BY INFL ATING PURCHASE COST IS ESSENTIALLY IN THE REALM OF PECULIAR FACTS OF A GIV EN CASE. THE ESTIMATION OF GP HAS TO BE SEEN IN THE HANDS OF INDIVIDUAL ASS ESSEE AND NOT WITH ITA NOS.948 & 1460/AHD/2012 ACIT VS. DEEP COTTON INDUSTRIES (CROSS) ASST.YEAR 2008-09 - 11 - REFERENCE TO A SUPPLIER SUPPLYING TO VARIOUS PARTIE S. THE GP RATIO OF DIFFERENT ASSESSEE CAN VARY DRAMATICALLY DEPENDING ON THE CIRCUMSTANCES THE PURCHASER IS PLACED IN. THUS, GP RATIO IN THE HANDS OF PURCHASER NEED NOT BE AT PAR WITH OTHER PURCHASER WHO AVAILED ACCO MMODATION FROM SAME SUPPLIER. WE NOTICE THAT 25% ESTIMATION WAS FOUND TO BE FAIR ESTIMATE BY THE HONBLE GUJARAT HIGH COURT AT LEAST IN TWO CASES NOTED ABOVE. COUPLED WITH THIS, AS NOTICED ABOVE, THE AS SESSEE HAS CAMOUFLAGED A SUBSTANTIAL PORTION OF PURCHASES. TH IS BEING SO, ESTIMATION OF 25% TOWARDS INFLATED PURCHASES IS QUI TE BEFITTING IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES. THUS, WE HOLD THAT THE CIT(A) HAS R IGHTLY DRAWN ITS CONCLUSION AND ESTIMATED 25% OF THE VALUE OF THE BO GUS PURCHASES AS UNACCOUNTED INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE. WE THUS DO NOT FIND ANY POTENCY IN THE PLEA OF THE ASSESSEE FOR FURTHER RELIEF TOWARDS DOWNWARD ESTIMATION. 13. IN THE RESULT, RESPECTIVE APPEALS OF BOTH REVEN UE AND ASSESSEE ARE DISMISSED. THIS ORDER PRONOUNCED IN OPEN COURT ON 02/ 11 /2017 SD/- SD/- (..) ( ) ( S.S. GODARA ) ( PRADIP KUMAR KEDIA ) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AHMEDABAD; DATED 02/ 11 /2017 3..),.)../ T.C. NAIR, SR. PS ITA NOS.948 & 1460/AHD/2012 ACIT VS. DEEP COTTON INDUSTRIES (CROSS) ASST.YEAR 2008-09 - 12 - !'#$%$' / COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. $' / THE APPELLANT 2. ($' / THE RESPONDENT. 3. 456, 7, / CONCERNED CIT 4. 7, ( ) / THE CIT(A)-I, AHMEDABAD 5. 89,)56 , 56/ , 4 / DR, ITAT, AHMEDABAD 6. ;* / GUARD FILE. / BY ORDER, (8,, //TRUE COPY// / ( DY./ASSTT.REGISTRAR) , / ITAT, AHMEDABAD 1. DATE OF DICTATION .. 30.10.17/1.1.17 (DICTATION-P AD 31-PAGES ATTACHED AT THE END OF THIS APPEAL-F ILE) 2. DATE ON WHICH THE TYPED DRAFT IS PLACED BEFORE THE DICTATING MEMBER 01.11.17 3. OTHER MEMBER 4. DATE ON WHICH THE APPROVED DRAFT COMES TO THE SR.P. S./P.S.. 5. DATE ON WHICH THE FAIR ORDER IS PLACED BEFORE THE D ICTATING MEMBER FOR PRONOUNCEMENT 6. DATE ON WHICH THE FAIR ORDER COMES BACK TO THE SR.P .S./P.S.02.11.17 7. DATE ON WHICH THE FILE GOES TO THE BENCH CLERK 02.11.17 8. DATE ON WHICH THE FILE GOES TO THE HEAD CLERK ... 9. THE DATE ON WHICH THE FILE GOES TO THE ASSISTANT RE GISTRAR FOR SIGNATURE ON THE ORDER.. 10. DATE OF DESPATCH OF THE ORDER