VINOD KUMAR,KARNAL vs. ITO WARD-1, KARNAL

Heard both the parties at length. Case file perused.

It transpires during the course of hearing that both the learned lower authorities have treated the assessee’s purchases of Rs.15,50,000/- as bogus once since sourced from Sh. Hitesh Jain which was found to be an accommodation entry provider as per the DDIT(Karnal)’s report after due investigation. It is in this factual backdrop that both the learned lower authorities have treated the aforesaid impugned purchases as unexplained

I have given my thoughtful consideration to the assessee’s and the Revenue vehement rival submissions reiterating their respective stands. Coming to the impugned alleged bogus purchase disallowance, the department could hardly dispute that the assessee’s corresponding sales have nowhere been doubted as duly declared in the P&L account. This is indeed coupled with the fact that the assessee has also not been able to plead and prove the impugned purchases as genuine by filing all the corresponding relevant supportive evidence in both the lower proceedings. It is thus deemed appropriate in these peculiar facts that the assessee’s impugned bogus purchases of Rs.15,50,000/- deserve to be disallowed at a lump sum rate of 10% with a rider that the same shall not be treated as a precedent. Necessary computation shall follow as per law.