BOON PETRO CHEM HOUSE,MUMBAI vs. ITO,WARD- 17 (1)(3), MUMBAI

These are the appeals filed by the assessee against the order of the Ld. CIT(A) for the A.Y 2009-10, 2010-11 & 2011-12, in the matter of order passed u/s 143(3) r.w.s 147 of the Act. 2. Common grievance of assessee in all these years are related to addition on account of bogus purchases upheld by the CIT(A) to the extent of 8%.

From the record, I found that during the course of re- assessment proceedings A.O came to the conclusion that has assessee taken bogus purchase bill. Accordingly, he made addition by computing gross profit of 12.5% on such alleged bogus purchases. The A.O observed that assessee has not been able to provide any corroborative evidence to prove its purchases from the aforesaid six parties. Further, the AO has tried to ascertain the genuineness of purchases by issuing notices u/s 133(6) to the parties but they came back un-served. This fact was brought to the notice of the assessee but the assessee expressed its inability to produce the parties. During the course of appellate proceedings, the assessee has not brought anything new to prove its genuineness of the claim before CIT(A). The assessee has 5904 & 5905//Mum/2018. Boon Petro Chem House, Mumbai. - 3 - merely stated that the purchases are genuine and also relied on plethora of case law.

Under these facts and circumstances the CIT(A) after considering the various judicial pronouncements and the facts and circumstances of the instant case modified the order of the A.O and upheld the addition only to the extent of 8% of such bogus purchases. Nothing was produced before me so as to persuade me to deviate from the finding recorded by lower authority.

In the result all the three appeals filed by the assessee are dismissed.