INCOME TAX OFFICER 25(2)(1), MUMBAI V. A VARSHIT & COMPANY, MUMBAI

ITA 990/MUM/2018

• Counselvise Citation: [2019] 112 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 6633 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 5 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 27-02-2019
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Assessment Year: 2008-2009
• Appeal Filed On: 21-02-2018
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: IN CIRCUMSTANCES OF CA SE
• Assessee Lawyers: MANAG; THAT ALL CONCERNS CONTROLLED
• Keywords: Bogus purchase; Unexplained expenditure; Accommodation entries; Set aside
• Section: 69C; 142(1); 133(6); 143(1); 143(2); 147; 148; 132

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCHES A , MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI MAHAVIR SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER, AND SHRI G. MANJUNATHA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO.990/MUM/2018 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2008-09 ITO - 25(2)(1), C-10, ROOM NO.505, 5 TH FLOOR, PRATYAKSHKAR BHAVAN, BANDRA KURLA COMPLEX, BANDRA, MUMBAI-400051 / VS. A. VARSHIT & COMPANY, 802, MILLENNIUM APARTMENT, PLOT NO.661, LALLUBHAI PARK ROAD, EXT. VILE PARLE (WEST), MUMBAI-400056 ( / REVENUE) ( /ASSESSEE) P.A. NO.AAKFA6008L / DATE OF HEARING : 21/02/2019 / DATE OF ORDER: 27/02/2019 / O R D E R PER G. MANJUNATHA, (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) THIS APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE IS DIRECTED AGAINS T THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A)-37, MUMBAI, DATED 07/12/2017 AND IT PERTAINS TO AY 2008 -09. THE REVENUE HAS RAISED FOLLOWING GROUNDS OF APPEAL:- 1. 'ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CA SE AND IN LAW, THE LD. C 11(A) HAS ERRED IN DELETING THE ADDITION OF RS.84,19,646/ - ON ACCOUNT OF BOGUS PURCHASES.' 2. 'ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CA SE AND IN LAW, THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN NOT CONSIDERING THAT THE ADDITION WAS MADE ON THE BASIS OF INFORMATION RECEIVED FROM THE DGIT(INV.), MUMBAI, WITH REGARD TO BOGUS P URCHASES MADE BY THE ASSESSEE THAT ALL THE CONCERNS CONTROLLED AND MANAGED BY THEM ARE NOT DOING ANY REAL TRADING IN DIAMONDS BUT INDULGED IN PAPER TRANSACTIONS ONLY.' / REVENUE BY SHRI VIJAY KUMAR JAISWAL / ASSESSEE BY SHRI BHARAT KUMAR 2 ITA NO.990/MUM2018 A VARSHIT & COMPANY 3. 'ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CA SE AND IN LAW, THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN NOT CONSIDERING THAT THE HAWALA DEALERS HA VE ADMITTED BEFORE THE INVESTIGATION WING THE MODUS OPERANDI FOLLOWED BY THE ABOVE GROUP BY THE KEY PERSONS OF THE GROUP IN THEIR STATEMENTS RECORDED ON OATH.' 4. 'ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CA SE AND IN LAW, THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IS NOT CONSIDERING THAT THE ASSESSEE COULD NOT PROV E THE GENUINENESS OF THE PARTIES DURING THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS.' 5. 'ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CA SE AND IN LAW, THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN ESTIMATING THE PROFIT AT 3% OF THE TOTAL A LLEGED BOGUS PURCHASES FROM HAWALA DEALERS.' 6. 'ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CA SE AND IN LAW, THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN NOT APPRECIATING THE DECISION OF THE HON'B LE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF N.K. PROTEINS LTD. VS. DCIT (2017-TIOL-23-SC-IT) DATED 1 6.01.2017 WHEREIN THE HON'BLE APEX COURT CONFIRMED THE DECISION OF THE HIGH COURT FOR ADDITION OF ENTIRE INCOME ON ACCOUNT OF BOGUS PURCHASES.' 7. 'THE APPELLANT PRAYS THAT THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A ) ON THE ABOVE GROUNDS BE SET ASIDE AND THAT OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER BE RESTORED .' 2. THE BRIEF, FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT THE ASSESS EE, PARTNERSHIP FIRM IS ENGAGED IN THE BUSINESS OF DIAMOND TRADING, FILED ITS RETURN O F INCOME FOR AY 2008-09, ON 09/09/2008, DECLARING TOTAL INCOME AT RS. 1,66,390/- AND SAID R ETURN WAS PROCESSED U/S 143(1) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 (HEREINAFTER THE ACT). IN T HIS CASE, INFORMATION WAS RECEIVED FROM THE DGIT(INV.) THAT DURING THE SEARCH PROCEEDINGS U /S 132 OF THE ACT, ON RAJENDRA JAIN GROUP, IT IS KNOWN THAT ASSESSEE HAVE TAKEN ACCOMMO DATION ENTRIES OF BOGUS PURCHASES OF RS.86,80,048/- FROM FOUR CONCERNS OWNED AND OPER ATED BY RAJENDRA JAIN GROUP AND ITS ASSOCIATES. DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH, RAJENDRA J AIN GROUP HAD ADMITTED THAT THEY WERE INDULGED IN ISSUING BOGUS BILLS WITHOUT THEIR BEING ANY BUSINESS ACTIVITY. BASED ON THE SAID INFORMATION, THE CASE HAS BEEN REOPENED U/S 147 OF THE ACT AND ISSUED NOTICE U/S 148 OF THE ACT. IN RESPONSE TO NOTICE U/S 148 OF THE ACT, THE ASSESSEE FILED LETTER DATED 16/04/2015 AND SUBMITTED THAT RETURN OF INCOME FILE D ON 09/09/2008 FOR AY 2008-09 MAY 3 ITA NO.990/MUM2018 A VARSHIT & COMPANY BE TREATED AS RETURN FILED IN RESPONSE TO NOTICE U/ S 148 OF THE ACT. THEREAFTER, NOTICE U/S 143(2) AND 142(1) OF THE ACT, ALONG WITH QUESTIONNA IRE WERE ISSUED. IN RESPONSE TO NOTICE, THE LD. AR OF THE ASSESSEE, FILED VARIOUS DETAILS A S CALLED FOR. IN ORDER TO VERIFY THE GENUINENESS OF TRANSACTION, THE AO ISSUED NOTICES U /S 133(6) OF THE ACT TO ALL THE PARTIES, FOR WHICH EXCEPT ONE PARTY, NONE HAVE REPLIED FILIN G DETAILS CALLED FOR BY THE AO. IN RESPECT OF THREE PARTIES, POSTAL AUTHORITIES RETURNED NOTIC E WITH REMARK NOT CLAIMED. DURING THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, THE AO CALLED UPON THE ASSE SSEE TO EXPLAIN AS TO WHY PURCHASE FROM THE ABOVE PARTIES SHALL NOT BE TREATED AS UNEX PLAINED EXPENDITURE U/S 69C OF THE ACT IN VIEW OF THE SPECIFIC INFORMATION RECEIVED FROM T HE DGIT(INV.) AS WELL AS NO REPLY RECEIVED FROM THE PARTIES IN RESPONSE TO NOTICES. IN REPLY, THE ASSESSEE STATED THAT PURCHASES FROM ABOVE PARTIES ARE GENUINE, WHICH ARE SUPPORTED BY PROPER EVIDENCE. MERELY FOR THE REASON THIRD PARTY HAS ADMITTED IN I TS PROCEEDINGS THAT PURCHASES ARE BOGUS, NO ADVERSE INFERENCE CAN BE DRAWN AGAINST TH E ASSESSEE WHEN THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED VARIOUS DETAILS TO PROVE PURCHASES. THE AO AF TER CONSIDERING THE SUBMISSION OF THE ASSESSEE AND ALSO TAKEN INTO ACCOUNT, INFORMATION R ECEIVED FROM DGIT(INV.) HELD THAT ASSESSEE HAS FAILED TO PROVE THE PURCHASES FROM FOU R PARTIES WITH NECESSARY EVIDENCE AND HENCE TOTAL PURCHASE AMOUNTING TO RS.86,80,048/- H AS BEEN TREATED AS UNEXPLAINED EXPENDITURE U/S 69C OF THE ACT. AGGRIEVED BY THE A SSESSMENT ORDER, THE ASSESSEE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A). 3. BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A), THE ASSESSEE HAS REITERA TED ITS SUBMISSIONS MADE BEFORE THE LD. AO TO ARGUE THAT MERELY FOR THE REAS ON THAT NOTICE ISSUED U/S 133(6) WERE 4 ITA NO.990/MUM2018 A VARSHIT & COMPANY RETURNED, PURCHASE WHICH ARE SUPPORTED BY VALID EVI DENCE CANNOT BE TREATED AS ACCOMMODATION ENTRIES. THE ASSESSEE FURTHER SUBMITT ED THAT THE ASSESSEE IS IN THE BUSINESS OF DIAMOND TRADING, WHERE THE PROFIT MARGI N IS VARIES 1 TO 3 % AND THIS FACT HAS BEEN FURTHER STRENGTHENED BY THE REPORT OF TASK FOR CE GROUP OF DIAMOND INDUSTRY, CONSTITUTED BY GOVT. OF INDIA. AFTER CONSIDERING TH E BAP SCHEME AS PER WHICH THE TASK FORCE HAS ESTIMATED GROSS PROFIT OF 2 TO 3% FOR MA NUFACTURING ACTIVITY AND 3% FOR TRADING SCHEMES. 4. THE CIT(A), AFTER CONSIDERING RELEVANT FACTS AN D ALSO BY TAKING OTHER FACTS INCLUDING VAT RATE APPLICABLE ON DIAMOND PRODUCTS, DIRECTED THE AO TO SUSTAIN 3% PROFIT ON ALLEGED BOGUS PURCHASES FROM CONCERNS WHICH ARE OPERATED AND CONTROLLED BY RAJENDRA JAIN GROUP. RELEVANT OBSERVATION OF THE L D. CIT(A) ARE REPRODUCED HEREUNDER:- 5.12 IN THE LIGHT OF THE ABOVE, ONE HAS TO SEE IN T HE PRESENT CASE, WHICH IS IN THE LINE OF TRADING IN DIAMONDS, WHAT IS THE CORRECT PR OFIT ELEMENT EMBEDDED IN SUCH BOGUS PURCHASES. IN THE CASE OF DIAMOND TRADE, GENE RALLY THE RATE OF VAT IS STATED TO BE CHARGED @ 1% ON THE PURCHASES MADE FROM MUMBA I AND ON THE PURCHASES MADE UNDER FORM 'H' NO VAT IS LEVIED DUE TO EXPORT COMMITMENT AND PURCHASES MADE FROM SURAT ALSO THERE IS NO VAT LEVIED. COMING TO THE PROFIT MARGIN IN THE TRADE, THE TASK FORCE GROUP FOR DIAMOND INDUSTRY, A FTER CONSIDERING THE BAP SCHEME, RECOMMENDED PRESUMPTIVE TAX FOR NET PROFIT CALCULATED 2% OF TRADING ACTIVITY AND 3% FOR MANUFACTURING ACTIVITY OR @ 2. 5% ACROSS THE BOARD. IT IS ALSO ASCERTAINED THAT THE OPERATING PROFIT IN CASE OF DI AMOND TRADING FOR COMPUTATION OF ALP BY THE TP WING IS CONSISTENTLY IN THE REGION OF AROUND 1.75% TO 3%. IN VIEW OF THE SAME CONSIDERING THE PROFIT MARGIN IN THIS SECT OR I.E. AROUND 2 TO 3 PERCENT AND THE TAXES SAVED IS AROUND 1% I AM OF THE CONSIDERED OPINION THAT IF THE ADDITION IS SUSTAINED TO THE EXTENT OF 30/0 OF THE PURCHASES MA DE, AS THE PROFIT ELEMENT EMBEDDED IN SUCH PURCHASES FROM THE PARTIES BELONGI NG TO THE RAJENDRA JAIN GROUP CONCERNS, THAT WILL MEET THE ENDS OF JUSTICE. IN VIEW OF THE SAME, I DIRECT THE AO TO RESTRICT THE ADDITION @3% OF THE PURCHASES MA DE FROM AADI IMPEX, 5 ITA NO.990/MUM2018 A VARSHIT & COMPANY M/S.VITRANG JEWELS, M/S.AVI EXPORTS AND M/S.SPARSH EXPORTS PVT.LTD. OF RS.86,80,048/-. THIS GROUND IS PARTLY ALLOWED. 5. THE LD. DR, SUBMITTED THAT THE LD. CIT(A) WAS E RRED IN SCALED DOWN THE ADDITION MADE TOWARDS ALLEGED BOGUS PURCHASES FROM FIRM CONTROLLED BY RAJENDRA JAIN GROUP WITHOUT APPRECIATING THE FACT THAT RAJENDRA J AIN P HIMSELF, DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH, ADMITTED THAT HE IS INDULGED IN PROVIDING A CCOMMODATION ENTRIES WITHOUT ACTUAL DELIVERY OF GOODS AND THIS FACT WAS FURTHER STRENGT HENED BY ENQUIRIES CONDUCTED BY THE AO WHERE HE HAD CONDUCTED INDEPENDENT ENQUIRIES AS PER WHICH NONE OF THE PARTIES REPLIED TO NOTICES ISSUED U/S 133(6) OF THE ACT, THEREFORE, TH ERE IS NO REASON FOR THE LD. CIT(A) TO GO ON THE BASIS OF VAT RATE APPLICABLE TO THE DIAMOND INDUSTRIES AS WELL AS BAP SCHEME WHICH ARE RELEVANT UNDER NORMAL CIRCUMSTANCES WHERE PARTIES ARE INVOLVED IN REAL BUSINESS ACTIVITY. IN THIS CASE, FACTS WERE BROUGHT OUT DURING THE COURSE OF PROCEEDINGS COUPLED WITH REPORT OF THE DGIT(INV.) UNDISPUTEDLY, PROVED THAT THE ASSESSEE IS BENEFICIARY OF BOGUS BILLS ISSUED BY RAJENDRA JAIN GROUP AND HE NCE THE FINDINGS OF THE LD. CIT(A) ARE INCONSISTENT WITH FACT GATHERED DURING THE COURSE O F SEARCH. THE LD. DR FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT MOREOVER ITAT, MUMBAI, IN ASSESSEES OWN CASE, FOR AY 2007-08 IN ITA NO.6794/MUM/20016 HAS CONFIRMED THE ADDITIONS ON BO GUS PURCHASES @ 12.5% ON SUCH PURCHASES. THEREFORE, CONSISTENT WITH VIEW TAKEN BY THE TRIBUNAL, MUMBAI BENCH, IN ASSESSEES OWN CASE , ADDITIONS MAY BE SUSTAINED @ 12.5% ON ALLEGED BOGUS PURCHASES. 5. THE LD. AR ON THE OTHER HAND, STRONGLY SUPPORTED THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A) AND SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD FURNISHED SUFFICIEN T DETAILS INCLUDING PROPER TAX INVOICE AND ALSO CLARIFIED THE AO WITH REGARD TO OTHER DETA ILS INCLUDING LORRY RECEIPT AND TRANSPORT 6 ITA NO.990/MUM2018 A VARSHIT & COMPANY BILL CONSIDERING THE INDUSTRIAL PRACTICE THAT THOSE DOCUMENTS ARE NOT APPLICABLE. THE LD. AR FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT THE AO HAD ACCEPTED THE BOOK S OF ACCOUNT INCLUDING STOCK REGISTER. THE AO NEVER DOUBTED SALES DECLARED BY THE ASSESSEE . IN ABSENCE OF ANY OBSERVATIONS AS TO INCORRECTNESS OF BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS, MERELY FO R THE REASON THAT SOME INFORMATION RECEIVED FROM THIRD PARTIES, GENUINE PURCHASES CANN OT BE DOUBTED TO MAKE ADDITIONS. THE AR ALSO ARGUED ON APPLICABILITY OF PROVISIONS OF SE CTION 69C OF THE ACT IN LIGHT OF THE DECISION OF ITAT MUMBAI BENCH, IN THE CASE OF DCIT VS M/S R.R. OOMERBHOY PVT. LTD. AND SUBMITTED THAT WHEN SUFFICIENT EVIDENCE ARE FIL ED TO PROVE THE PURCHASES, NO ADDITIONS COULD BE MADE U/S 69C OF THE ACT. 6. WE HAVE HEARD BOTH PARTIES, PERUSED THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD AND GONE THROUGH THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW. THE FA CTS BROUGHT OUT BY THE AO IN THE CONTEXT OF DGIT(INV.) REPORT AND ALSO STATEMENT OF SHRI RAJ ENDRA JAIN, DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH PROCEEDINGS, IN HIS CASE WERE NOT FULLY CONTROVERTE D BY THE ASSESSEE WITH ANY EVIDENCE. IT IS ALSO AN ADMITTED FACT THAT THE PARTIES FROM WHOM PURCHASE OF MATERIALS STATED TO HAVE BEEN MADE BY THE ASSESSEE ARE NOT RESPONDED TO NOTI CE ISSUED U/S133(6) BY THE AO DURING THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS. UNDER THESE FACT UAL BACKGROUND, IF YOU EXAMINE THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE THAT PURCHASES ARE SUPPORTED BY PROPER TAX INVOICE AND PAYMENT FOR SUCH PURCHASE HAVE BEEN MADE THROUGH BANKING CHANNE L, ONE UNDOUBTED FACT EMERGING FROM THE ABOVE IS THAT ALTHOUGH THE ASSESSEE HAS FI LED CERTAIN BASIC EVIDENCE INCLUDING PURCHASE BILLS AND PAYMENTS, BUT FAILED TO FILE FUR THER EVIDENCE TO REBUT THE FINDINGS OF THE AO IN THE LIGHT OF REPORT OF DGIT(INV.) WHICH WAS F URTHER SUPPORTED BY THE STATEMENT OF 7 ITA NO.990/MUM2018 A VARSHIT & COMPANY RAJENDRA JAIN DURING SEARCH PROCEEDINGS IN HIS CASE . WE FURTHER NOTICED THAT SHRI RAJENDRA JAIN HAS ADMITTED IN THE STATEMENT RECORDE D U/S 132(4) OF THE ACT THAT HE IS INDULGED IN PROVIDING ACCOMMODATION ENTRIES WITHOUT THERE BEING ANY BUSINESS ACTIVITY. THEREFORE, WE ARE OF THE CONSIDERED VIEW THAT THERE IS NO MERIT IN THE ARGUMENTS OF THE ASSESSEE THAT PURCHASE FROM FIRM CONTROLLED AND MAN AGED BY RAJENDRA JAIN AND ASSOCIATES ARE GENUINE WHICH ARE SUPPORTED BY VALID EVIDENCE. 7. HAVING SAID SO, LET US, EXAMINE, WHAT IS THE FI NDING OF THE AO IN ARRIVING AT CONCLUSION THAT PURCHASES ARE BOGUS WHICH ARE NOT S UPPORTED BY PROPER EVIDENCE. THE AO HAS GONE ROUTINE EXERCISE BY ISSUING 133(6) NOTICES TO ASCERTAIN WITHOUT CARRYING OUT FURTHER INVESTIGATION TO KNOW EXACT NATURE OF THE T RANSACTION BETWEEN THE ASSESSEE AND SAID FIRMS WHEN THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED SUFFICIENT M ATERIALS INCLUDING PURCHASE BILLS. THEREFORE, WE ARE OF THE CONSIDERED VIEW, IT IS DIF FICULT TO ACCEPT THE VERSION OF THE AO THAT PURCHASES FROM ABOVE PARTIES ARE BOGUS IN NATURE WH ICH ARE NOT SUPPORTED BY VALID EVIDENCE. UNDER THESE FACTS, THE ONLY OPTION LEFT FOR THE AUTHORITIES IS TO SETTLE THE CONTROVERSY BY ESTIMATING INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE FR OM THESE KIND OF TRANSACTIONS. THE ASSESSEE CONTENDED THAT PROFIT PERCENTAGE IN DIAMON D TRADE VARIES FROM 1 TO 3% AND ALSO VAT RATE APPLICABLE FOR DIAMOND PRODUCTS IS AT 1%, CONSIDERING THESE FACTS, THE ASSESSEE ARGUED FOR REASONABLE ESTIMATE OF PROFIT ON ALLEGED BOGUS PURCHASES AND ALSO AS PER THE LD. AR FOR THE ASSESSEE WHATEVER PERCENTAGE ESTIMAT ED BY THE LD. CIT(A) IS QUITE REASONABLE, THERE IS NO REASON TO DEVIATE FROM THE PERCENTAGE OF PROFIT ADOPTED BY THE LD. CIT(A). BUT, FACT REMAINS THAT THE CO-ORDINATE BENC H OF THE TRIBUNAL IN ASSESSEES OWN 8 ITA NO.990/MUM2018 A VARSHIT & COMPANY CASE IN ITA NO.6794/MUM/2016 HAS CONSIDERED IDENTIC AL FACTS IN THE LIGHT OF DGIT(INV.) REPORT AND ALSO THE STATEMENT OF SHRI RAJENDRA JAIN GIVEN DURING COURSE OF SEARCH, TO ARRIVE AT A CONCLUSION THAT 12.5% PROFIT ON ALLEGED BOGUS PURCHASES IS REASONABLE AND WOULD MEET ENDS OF JUSTICE. FOR THE YEAR UNDER CON SIDERATION, THE FACTS ARE IDENTICAL AND EVEN PARTIES FROM WHOM PURCHASES WERE MADE BY THE A SSESSEE FOR AY 2007-08 AND FOR THE PRESENT ASSESSMENT YEAR ARE ONE AND THE SAME. U NDER THESE FACTS, IT IS DIFFICULT TO TAKE DIFFERENT VIEW FROM THE VIEW ALREADY TAKEN BY THE C O-ORDINATE BENCH. FURTHER, THE CO- ORDINATE BENCH OF MUMBAI TRIBUNAL HAD TAKEN A CONSI STENT VIEW IN CASE OF ALLEGED BOGUS PURCHASES AND DEPENDING UPON THE FACTS OF EACH CASE HAS DIRECTED THE AO TO ESTIMATE PROFIT PERCENTAGE OF 5 TO 12.5% ON ALLEGED BOGUS PU RCHASES. IN THIS CASE, CONSIDERING THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES AND ALSO KEEPING IN VIEW, D ECISION TAKEN BY THE CO-ORDINATE BENCH FOR AY 2007-08, WE ARE OF THE CONSIDERED VIEW THAT PROFIT PERCENTAGE APPLIED BY THE LD. CIT(A) ON ALLEGED BOGUS PURCHASES APPEARS TO BE LESS AND HENCE DIRECT THE AO TO CONSISTENT WITH VIEW TAKEN BY THE CO-ORDINATE BENCH , WE ADOPT 12.5% NET PROFIT ON ALLEGED BOGUS PURCHASES. 8. IN THE RESULT, APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE IS P ARTLY ALLOWED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 27/02/2019. SD/- SD/- ( MAHAVIR SINGH ) (G. MANJUNATHA) /JUDICIAL MEMBER / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER MUMBAI; DATED : 27/02/2019 F{X~{T? P.S / /. .. 9 ITA NO.990/MUM2018 A VARSHIT & COMPANY / COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. ! / THE APPELLANT (RESPECTIVE ASSESSEE) 2. '#$ ! / THE RESPONDENT. 3. %$%$ & ( ) / THE CIT, MUMBAI. 4. %$%$ & / CIT(A)- , MUMBAI, 5. ()*$'+ , %$$+ - , / DR, ITAT, MUMBAI 6. *. / / GUARD FILE. / BY ORDER, / (DY./ASSTT. REGISTRAR) %&' (, / ITAT, MUMBAI