Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Before: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi&
The Income Tax Officer, Vs. M/s. GCKC Projects and Works Pvt. Corporate Ward 2(1), Ltd., B-1, Gajel Apartments, 58, Chennai. Greams Road, Chennai 600 006. [PAN: AADCG4669D] (अपीलाथ�/Appellant) (��थ�/Respondent) अपीलाथ� की ओर से / Appellant by : Shri Samdariya Fateh Chand, FCA ��थ� की ओर से/Respondent by : Shri Nilay Baran Som, CIT सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date of hearing : 29.05.2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date of Pronouncement : 31.05.2024 आदेश /O R D E R
PER S.S. VISWANETHRA RAVI, JUDICIAL MEMBER:
This appeal by the Revenue is against the order dated 30.08.2023 passed by the ld. CIT(A) [NFAC], Delhi for the assessment year 2016-17.
The Revenue raised five grounds of appeal amongst which the only issue emanates for our consideration is to whether the ld. CIT(A) was justified in restricting the percentage of profit at 3.28% of total bogus purchase as against the addition on entire bogus purchases made by the Assessing Officer in the given facts and circumstances of the case.
3. We note that the assessee is a company, filed its return of income declaring total income of ₹.6,20,79,620/-. The Assessing Officer, on receipt of information, that the assessee has made bogus purchases from Basant Marketing Ltd. to a tune of ₹.46,67,71,385/-, issued notice under section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [“Act” in short]. In the reassessment proceedings, the Assessing Officer added entire amount of ₹.46,67,71,385/- on account of bogus purchases under section 69C of the Act and the same was challenged before the ld. CIT(A). We note that the assessee relied on various decisions and contended that the Assessing Officer fell in error in making addition of entire bogus purchases and requested the ld. CIT(A) to restrict the same of net profit in terms of the case law. The ld. CIT(A), considering the facts and circumstances of the case and case law relied upon by the assessee, restricted the addition to an extent of ₹.1,53,19,759/- being 3.28% of total bogus purchases.
The ld. DR Shri Nilay Baran Som, CIT relied on the order of the Assessing Officer.
The ld. AR Shri Samdariya Fateh Chand, FCA submits that the net profit of 3.28% was arrived at by the ld. CIT(A) basing on the tax audit report and supported the order of the ld. CIT(A). Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and taking into account various case law relied on by the ld. CIT(A), wherein, it is settled law that only net profit should be taken into account basing on the past history of the assessee, we find the same was considered in similar cases and accordingly, we find no infirmity in the order passed by the ld. CIT(A). Thus, the ground raised by the Revenue is dismissed.
In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed. Order pronounced on 31st May, 2024 at Chennai.