ITO WARD 4(3)(1), MUMBAI vs. SIDDHESHWAR IMPEX PVT LTD , MUMBAI

The assessee has raised following grounds of appeal:

Brief facts of the case are that the return declaring income of Rs. 64,299/- was filed by the assessee company on 30.09.2011. Subsequently, on receipt of information regarding suspicious transactions, the case was reopened u/s 147 of the Act. The assessee company is engaged in the business of trading/export/import of diamond and jewellery. After inquiries in respect of purchases made from M/s. Delight Diam Pvt. Ltd. & M/s Rajat Diamond of Rs. 40,56,526/- [17,55,656+23,00,870], the AO held that these are bogus and proceeded to make addition of the entire amount of Rs. 40,56,526/- u/s 69C of the Act. Ld. CIT(A) restricted the disallowance of the Gross Profit (GP) Rate to be 4. applied on the bogus purchases with the following observations. “5.3.6. Thus, the jurisdictional HC considering other judgements including that of the N.K. Industries (quoted supra) which was quoted by AO as Apex court decision in case of N.K. Proteins, had concluded that the gross profit ratio on purchases at the same rate of other genuine purchases has to be brought to tax. The position was reiterated in case of Principal Commissioner of Income-tax v. Nitin Ramdeoji Lohia 145 taxmann.com 546 (2022) wherein the Hon'ble HC remanded the matter back to the Tribunal to consider the issue of determining the gross profit ratio on the purchases found to be non-genuine. The court stated thus: Page 2 of 6 A.Y. 2011-12 Sidheshwar Impex Pvt. Ltd. "We are in agreement with the view expressed by the CIT (Appeals) that, if the purchases are bogus, it would be impossible for the assessee to complete the business transaction and that if the purchase is bogus, the corresponding sale also must be bogus or else the transaction would be impossible to complete and as a necessary corollary, unless the corresponding sale is held to be bogus, the purchase also cannot be held to be bogus, rather it would be a case of purchase from bogus entities/parties. That view has been upheld by the Tribunal in principal while dismissing the appeal of the Revenue. In view of the above, we are of the opinion that the questions of law proposed as (a), (b), and (c) in the appeal cannot be said to be substantial questions of law. Insofar as the question of law framed as (d) is concerned, we find that the Tribunal has not addressed the issue of adopting the gross profit rate of 5% on the alleged Hawala purchase of Rs. 2.45 crores as against the rate of 0.69% declared by the assessee, despite the fact that the CIT (Appeals) had specifically gone into that question in its order dated 18th August, 2015 and had directed the A.O. to make 5% addition in the gross profit ratio, while deleting the balance addition." 5.3.7. These decisions are applicable to the current case as the facts and circumstances are similar because here too, only the part of purchases was questioned by the AO. The jurisdictional High Court has taken the gross profit ratio on purchases at the same rate of other genuine purchases accepted by the department. The Honourable HC has consistently held onto this logic. In the very latest judgement in case of PCIT v. S.V.Jiwani 449 ITR 583 (2022), 290 Taxman 178(2022), the Court held thus: "It also held that the A.O. had not disputed the turnover of the contract work executed by the assessee and that unless the assessee procured the materials and goods, if not from the declared sources but from some other sources, it would not be possible on the part of the assessee to execute work awarded by MCGM. The Tribunal, therefore, held that the entire purchase made by the assessee could not be added back as income, but only profit element embedded therein, be treated as income of the assessee. 5.3.8. Further, in a later judgement than of N.K. Industries, the High Court of Gujarat in case of PCIT v. Surya Impex [2023] 148 taxmann.com 154 (Gujarat) also held that "11. Having found that the Assessing Officer has chosen not to reject the books of accounts of the assessee and had made the estimated additions of the pieces of the purchases. Both, the CIT Page 3 of 6 A.Y. 2011-12 Sidheshwar Impex Pvt. Ltd. (Appeals) and the Tribunal, have concurrently and rightly held to make the additions, which the CIT (Appeals) had done @ 12.5% of the impugned purchases, which have been reduced and restricted to 6%. It will not be out of place to make a mention that the Assessing Officer's inquiry was based on the report of the Investigation Wing, Mumbai, the copy of the statement of Shri Bhanwarlal Jain and others had been asked for by the assessee, which also had not been provided nor was he allowed a cross- examination. This, of course, could have been a reason for the Authority concerned to restore the matter back to the Assessing Officer, however, noticing the elaborate evidence consisting the details of purchase, PAN, etc., coupled with the Assessing Officer and the CIT (Appeals) dealing with the case of Shri Bhanwarlal Jain and others involved therein, if addition directed of 6% of the disputed purchases by noting that the profit margin in the said industry is 5% to 7% without even going by the estimation of the possible profit margin in the industry, suffice to note that in all cases relating to Shri Bhanwarlal Jain, both, the Assessing Officer and the CIT (Appeals), Mumbai, have chosen to make addition @3% to 5% of the bogus purchases. That view of the matter, no purpose is going to be served in interference. There are concurrent findings with sound reasons.