ASHOK VRAJLAL GOLAWALA,MUMBAI vs. ITO 25(2)(1), MUMBAI

The issue raised is that the learned CIT(A) erred in making addition at the rate of 12.5% on account of bogus purchases.

I have heard both the Counsel and perused the records. The learned Departmental Representative has referred to Hon’ble Gujarat High Court decision in the case of Tax Appeal No.240 of 2003 in the case of N.K.Industries v. DCIT, order dated 20.06.2016, wherein 100% of the bogus purchases will be held to be added in the hands of the assessee and Tribunal’s restriction of the addition to 25% of the bogus purchases was set

. Shri Ashok Vrajlal Golwala. aside. The Special Leave Petition against this order along with others has been dismissed by the Hon’ble Apex Court vide order dated 16.01.2017.

However, in my considered opinion, it would not be appropriate to take away the benefit granted to the assessee. This is also not an appeal by the Revenue. Accordingly, I hold that a disallowance of 12.5% out of the bogus purchase would serve the end of justice. Hence, I uphold the order of the learned CIT(A).

The learned Counsel of the assessee fairly agreed to the addition at 12.5% of the bogus purchases and did not press the matter any further.

In the result, this appeal by the assessee stands dismissed. Order pronounced on this 05th day of July, 2017. Sd/- (Shamim Yahya) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER मुंबई Mumbai; �दनांक Dated : 05th July, 2017. Devdas* आदेश क� ��त�ल�प अ�े�षत/Copy of the Order forwarded to : 1. अपीलाथ� / The Appellant 2. ��यथ� / The Respondent. 3. आयकर आयु�त(अपील) / The CIT, Mumbai. 4. आयकर आयु�त / CIT(A), Mumbai 5. �वभागीय ��त�न�ध, आयकर अपील�य अ�धकरण, मुंबई / DR, ITAT, Mumbai 6. गाड� फाईल / Guard file. आदेशानुसार/ BY ORDER, True copy