CIT v. Simit P. Sheth

356 ITR 451High Court2013#27 most cited

What is CIT v. Simit P. Sheth authority for?

Additions for alleged bogus purchases should be restricted to the profit element, not the entire turnover. The profit element is often estimated at 12.5% of the purported bogus purchases.

1,465

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 367,359 Indian tax judgments — from 2016 to 2026.

Also referred to as

CIT v. Simit P. Sheth · section 69C · bogus purchases · undisclosed income · addition on profit element · gross profit · net profit · reassessment · assessment procedure

Also reported as

38 Taxmann 385

Sections most often in play

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 132Section 131Section 69CSection 133(6)Section 143(2)

Issues it is cited on

section 69csection 131section 133(6)reassessment proceedingsundisclosed incomesearch and seizuresection 69section 132section 13section 148businesssection 147

Judgments citing CIT v. Simit P. Sheth

Smt.Rajlakshmi B., Mumbai vs. Pr.CIT-29, Mumbai

The appeal stands allowed

ITA 6188/MUM/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Mar 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am आयकरअपील सं./ I.T.A. No.6188/Mum/2018 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year:2010-11) Smt. Rajlakshmi B. Pr. Cit-29 Unit No.132B Room No. C-10, बनाम/ 3R D Floor, Pratyakshkar Bhavan Nahar & Sheth Ind. Estate Vs. Bandra Kurla Complex, Pannalal Compound, Lbs Marg Bandra(E), Mumbai-400 051. Bhandup(W), Mumbai-400 078. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Afgpb-1497-M (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" / Respondent) : Appellant By : Hitesh Shah - Ld.Ar Respondent By : D.G. Pansari- Ld.Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/ : 14/03/2019 Date Of Hearing घोषणा की तारीख / : 18/03/2019 Date Of Pronouncement आदेश / O R D E R

For Appellant: Hitesh Shah - Ld.ARFor Respondent: D.G. Pansari- Ld.DR
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 263Section 263(1)

…1 Smt. Rajlakshmi B. Assessment Year :2010-11 आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण “डी” "ायपीठ मुंबई म"। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “D” BENCH, MUMBAI माननीय "ी महावीर िसंह, "ाियक सद" एवं माननीय "ी मनोज कुमार अ"वाल ,लेखा सद" के सम"। BEFORE HON’BLE SHRI MAHAVIR SINGH, JM AND HON’BLE SHRI MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL, AM आयकरअपील सं./ I.T.A. No.6188/Mum/2018 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year:2010-11) Smt. Rajlakshmi B. Pr. CIT-29 Unit no.132B Room No. C-10, बनाम/ 3r d Floor, Pratyakshkar Bhavan Nahar & Sheth Ind. Estate Vs. Bandra Kurla Complex, Pannalal Compound, LBS Marg Bandra(E), Mumbai-400 051. Bhandup(W), Mumbai-400 078. "थायील…

Rishabh Steell (House), Mumbai vs. ITO 19 (3)(1), Mumbai

The appeal stands dismissed

ITA 5078/MUM/2018[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Mar 2019AY 2007-08

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am

For Appellant: Vimal Punamiya- Ld. ARFor Respondent: D.G. Pansari - Ld.DR
Section 133(6)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

…ting purchase bills, bank statements, VAT challans, ledger extracts, however, failed to substantiate the actual delivery of material with supporting documents. Finally, relying upon the decision of Hon’ble Gujarat High Court rendered in CIT Vs. Simit P.Sheth [356 ITR 451], Ld. AO estimated the addition against the same @20% which resulted into impugned additions of Rs,18.73 Lacs in the hands of the assessee. 3. The Ld. first appellate authority while upholding the validity of reassessment proceedings restricted the impugned additions to 5% keeping in view the decision of this Tribunal rendered in assessee’s own…

Pawanraj N Shah, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 19(2)(5), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of assessee is partly allowed

ITA 6632/MUM/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Mar 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Sri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am

For Appellant: Shri Akash Kumar, ARFor Respondent: Shri Abirama Karthikeyan, DR
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 145(3)Section 148

…e returned income of the assessee. Aggrieved, assessee preferred the appeal before CIT(A), who confirmed the addition made by the AO by observing in para 6 & 7 by following the decision of Hon’ble Gujarat High court in the case of CIT vs. Smith P. Seth (2013) 356 ITR 451 (Guj) by observing as under: - “6. The brief facts are that the appellant has filed his return of Income for the A.Y.2010-11 on 16.09.2010 declaring total income of Rs.4,59,730/-. Subsequently, the AO received information from the sates tax department through the DGIT(Inv.), Mumbai that the appellant had procured bogus purchase bills totaling to…

Pravin D. Jain, Mumbai vs. ITO 14(3)(4), Mumbai

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 7167/MUM/2016[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai15 Mar 2019AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Amarjeet Singh

For Appellant: Shri Nimesh Chotani, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Abi Rama Karthikeyan, D.R
Section 133(6)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 69

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, MUMBAI BENCH “C”, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI RAJESH KUMAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI AMARJEET SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA Nos.7167, 7168 & 7169/M/2016 Assessment Years: 2008-09, 2009-10 & 2010-11 Shri Pravin D. Jain, ITO 14(3)(4), Prop. M/s. Rejendra Mumbai Metal Inds. 225, Petit House, Vs. Shop No.4, Thakurdwar Road, Mumbai – 400 002 PAN: AABPJ6897R (Appellant) (Respondent) Present for: Assessee by : Shri Nimesh Chotani, A.R. Revenue by : Shri Abi Rama Karthikeyan, D.R. Date of Hearing : 07.03.2019 Date of Pronouncement : 15.03.2019 O R D E R Per Rajesh Kumar, Accountant Membe…

Indira Devi Patodia, Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward - 44(1), Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of assessee is partly allowed

ITA 1031/KOL/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata01 Mar 2019AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm]

Section 133(6)Section 147Section 148

…1 Indira Devi Patodia, AY:2011-12 आयकर अपील"य अधीकरण, "यायपीठ – “B(SMC)” कोलकाता, IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “B(SMC)” BENCH: KOLKATA (सम") "ी ऐ. ट". वक", "यायीक सद"य ) [Before Shri A. T. Varkey, JM] I.T.A. No. 1031/Kol/2018 Assessment Year: 2011-12 Indira Devi Patodia Vs. Income-tax Officer, Wd-44(1), Kolkata. (PAN: AGGPP6618K) Appellant Respondent Date of Hearing 28.01.2019 Date of Pronouncement 01.03.2019 For the Appellant Shri Subash Agarwal, Advocate For the Respondent Md. Altaf Hussain, Addl. CIT, Sr. DR ORDER Per Shri A.T.Varkey, JM This appeal filed by the assessee against the order of Ld.…

Kokilkumar M.Siyal, Mumbai vs. ITO 18(2)(1), Mmbai

In the result, the appeal of assessee is partly allowed

ITA 3206/MUM/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Feb 2019AY 2011-12

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh

For Appellant: Shri Nimesh Chothani, ARFor Respondent: Shri
Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 147

…he returned income of the assessee. Aggrieved, assessee preferred the appeal before CIT(A), who confirmed the addition made by the AO by observing in paras 4.3 by following the decision of Hon’ble Gujarat High court in the case of CIT vs. Smith P. Seth (2013) 356 ITR 451 (Guj) by observing as under: - “4.3 The submissions and case laws relied by the Ld. counsel for the appellant have been carefully considered. When the expenditure has been claimed by the assessee, the onus is on the assessee to prove the genuineness of the same. As it is the claim of the assessee that he has made purchases from the said parties…

Koilkumar M. Siyal, Mumabi vs. ITO 18(2)(1), Mumbai`

In the result, the appeal of assessee is partly allowed

ITA 3205/MUM/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Feb 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh

For Appellant: Shri Nimesh Chothani, ARFor Respondent: Shri
Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 147

…he returned income of the assessee. Aggrieved, assessee preferred the appeal before CIT(A), who confirmed the addition made by the AO by observing in paras 4.3 by following the decision of Hon’ble Gujarat High court in the case of CIT vs. Smith P. Seth (2013) 356 ITR 451 (Guj) by observing as under: - “4.3 The submissions and case laws relied by the Ld. counsel for the appellant have been carefully considered. When the expenditure has been claimed by the assessee, the onus is on the assessee to prove the genuineness of the same. As it is the claim of the assessee that he has made purchases from the said parties…

Deepak P. Varyani, Mumbai vs. ITO 24(1)(5), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of assessee is partly allowed

ITA 3191/MUM/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Feb 2019AY 2011-12

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh

For Appellant: Shri Mukesh A. Advani, ARFor Respondent: Shri
Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 147

…the assessee. Aggrieved, assessee preferred the appeal before CIT(A), who restricted the disallowance at 12.5% of the bogus purchases by observing in para 4.14 by following the decision of Hon’ble Gujarat High court in the case of CIT vs. Smith P. Seth (2013) 356 ITR 451 (Guj) by observing as under: - “4.14 Thus, after a study of different case while keeping in mind the totality of circumstances as discussed above it is observed that the AO issued notices under section 133(6) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 which were returned un- served by the postal authorities established his suspicious that the said purchases ar…

Vedangi Ventures, Badlapur vs. Asst CIT Cir 2, Kalyan

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 564/MUM/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai01 Feb 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri G. Manjunathaassessment Year : 2012-13

For Appellant: NONEFor Respondent: Shri Satishchandra Rajore, DR
Section 133(6)Section 143(2)

…n number of cases have come to the conclusion that in cases where purchases are not proved with necessary evidences, only profit element embedded on those purchases needs to be taxed. The Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in the case of CIT vs Simit P Sheth (2013) 356 ITR 451 (Guj) has held that no uniform yardstick can be applied for estimation of profit and it depends upon facts of each case. The co-ordinate bench of ITAT, Mumbai Benches in several cases have taken a : 9 : ITA No. 564/Mum/17 consistent view and directed the AO to estimate profit ranging from 5% to 12.5% depending upon facts of each case and natur…

Income Tax Officer, Ward 1(4), Kalyan vs. Subhash D. Chaudhary Prop.M/S.Sobita Enterprises., Mumbai

In the result, appeals of the assessee are partly allowed and appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 5146/MUM/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Jan 2019AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Ble & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Hon'Ble

For Appellant: Shri Nishit GandhiFor Respondent: Shri Chaudhary Arun Kumar Singh
Section 133(6)Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 145(3)Section 148Section 40A(3)

…nd 5% to 7.5% for all these three Assessment Years i.e. 2009-10 to 2011-12. Ld.CIT(A) estimated the profit element of the purchases treated as non-genuine @12.5% placing reliance on the decision of the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in the case of Simit P. Sheth [356 ITR 451]. Since the assessee is only a trader in paper business and had already shown the gross profit on sales at 5% to 7.5% for all these (A.Ys: 2009-10, 2010-11 & 2011-12) Shri Subhash D. Chaudhary three Assessment Years and as the gross profit rate of the assessee in its business is around 5%, taking the totality of facts and circumstances into consi…

Income Tax Officer, Ward 1(4), Kalyan vs. Subhash D. Chaudhary Prop.M/S.Sobita Enterprises., Mumbai

In the result, appeals of the assessee are partly allowed and appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 5145/MUM/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Jan 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Ble & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Hon'Ble

For Appellant: Shri Nishit GandhiFor Respondent: Shri Chaudhary Arun Kumar Singh
Section 133(6)Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 145(3)Section 148Section 40A(3)

…nd 5% to 7.5% for all these three Assessment Years i.e. 2009-10 to 2011-12. Ld.CIT(A) estimated the profit element of the purchases treated as non-genuine @12.5% placing reliance on the decision of the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in the case of Simit P. Sheth [356 ITR 451]. Since the assessee is only a trader in paper business and had already shown the gross profit on sales at 5% to 7.5% for all these (A.Ys: 2009-10, 2010-11 & 2011-12) Shri Subhash D. Chaudhary three Assessment Years and as the gross profit rate of the assessee in its business is around 5%, taking the totality of facts and circumstances into consi…

Income Tax Officer, Ward 1(4), Kalyan vs. Subhash D. Chaudhary, Mumbai

In the result, appeals of the assessee are partly allowed and appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 5144/MUM/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Jan 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Ble & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Hon'Ble

For Appellant: Shri Nishit GandhiFor Respondent: Shri Chaudhary Arun Kumar Singh
Section 133(6)Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 145(3)Section 148Section 40A(3)

…nd 5% to 7.5% for all these three Assessment Years i.e. 2009-10 to 2011-12. Ld.CIT(A) estimated the profit element of the purchases treated as non-genuine @12.5% placing reliance on the decision of the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in the case of Simit P. Sheth [356 ITR 451]. Since the assessee is only a trader in paper business and had already shown the gross profit on sales at 5% to 7.5% for all these (A.Ys: 2009-10, 2010-11 & 2011-12) Shri Subhash D. Chaudhary three Assessment Years and as the gross profit rate of the assessee in its business is around 5%, taking the totality of facts and circumstances into consi…

Subhash D. Chaudhary, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 1(4), Kalyan

In the result, appeals of the assessee are partly allowed and appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 5044/MUM/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Jan 2019AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Ble & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Hon'Ble

For Appellant: Shri Nishit GandhiFor Respondent: Shri Chaudhary Arun Kumar Singh
Section 133(6)Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 145(3)Section 148Section 40A(3)

…nd 5% to 7.5% for all these three Assessment Years i.e. 2009-10 to 2011-12. Ld.CIT(A) estimated the profit element of the purchases treated as non-genuine @12.5% placing reliance on the decision of the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in the case of Simit P. Sheth [356 ITR 451]. Since the assessee is only a trader in paper business and had already shown the gross profit on sales at 5% to 7.5% for all these (A.Ys: 2009-10, 2010-11 & 2011-12) Shri Subhash D. Chaudhary three Assessment Years and as the gross profit rate of the assessee in its business is around 5%, taking the totality of facts and circumstances into consi…

Subhash D. Chaudhary, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 1(4), Kalyan

In the result, appeals of the assessee are partly allowed and appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 5043/MUM/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Jan 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Ble & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Hon'Ble

For Appellant: Shri Nishit GandhiFor Respondent: Shri Chaudhary Arun Kumar Singh
Section 133(6)Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 145(3)Section 148Section 40A(3)

…nd 5% to 7.5% for all these three Assessment Years i.e. 2009-10 to 2011-12. Ld.CIT(A) estimated the profit element of the purchases treated as non-genuine @12.5% placing reliance on the decision of the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in the case of Simit P. Sheth [356 ITR 451]. Since the assessee is only a trader in paper business and had already shown the gross profit on sales at 5% to 7.5% for all these (A.Ys: 2009-10, 2010-11 & 2011-12) Shri Subhash D. Chaudhary three Assessment Years and as the gross profit rate of the assessee in its business is around 5%, taking the totality of facts and circumstances into consi…

Subhash D. Chaudhary, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 1(4), Kalyan

In the result, appeals of the assessee are partly allowed and appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 5042/MUM/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Jan 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Ble & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Hon'Ble

For Appellant: Shri Nishit GandhiFor Respondent: Shri Chaudhary Arun Kumar Singh
Section 133(6)Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 145(3)Section 148Section 40A(3)

…nd 5% to 7.5% for all these three Assessment Years i.e. 2009-10 to 2011-12. Ld.CIT(A) estimated the profit element of the purchases treated as non-genuine @12.5% placing reliance on the decision of the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in the case of Simit P. Sheth [356 ITR 451]. Since the assessee is only a trader in paper business and had already shown the gross profit on sales at 5% to 7.5% for all these (A.Ys: 2009-10, 2010-11 & 2011-12) Shri Subhash D. Chaudhary three Assessment Years and as the gross profit rate of the assessee in its business is around 5%, taking the totality of facts and circumstances into consi…

ITO-27(1)(3), Mumbai vs. Shri. Hasmukhlal T. Mehta, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 438/MUM/2019[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Jan 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri R.C. Sharma: A.Y : 2009-10

For Respondent: Shri Anoop Hiwase
Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 69C

…isclosed parties in the grey market at lower rates and purchases were shown as being made from the impugned parties to suppress its profits. In such a situation, the various Courts including the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in the case of CIT vs Simit P. Sheth, 356 ITR 451 have held that not the entire purchases but only the profit element embedded in these purchases was to be disallowed and accordingly held that 12.5% of the purchases will be reasonable as profit on margin against the bogus purchases. In view of this decision of Hon'ble Gujarat High Court (supra), the addition made by the AO is restricted to 12.5%…

Sharma Egg Supplier, Siliguri vs. ITO, Ward - 2(3), Siliguri

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1846/KOL/2018[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata28 Dec 2018AY 2015-16

Bench: "ी ऐ. ट". वक", "यायीक सद"य) [Before Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm] I.T.A. No. 1846/Kol/2018 Assessment Year: 2015-16

Section 40A(3)Section 69C

…rofit embedded in the sales can be added. We note that the assessee has shown the GP @ 3.5%. Relying on the decision of Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in a similar case reported as CIT Vs. Bholanath Poly Fab Pvt. Ltd. 355 ITR 290 (Guj.) and CIT Vs. Simit P. Sheth 356 ITR 451 (Guj), we consider the GP @ 5% would be sufficient in the facts and circumstances of the case for the interest of justice in this case. Therefore, this ground of appeal of assessee is partly allowed. 4. Ground no. 2 of assessee’s appeal is against the action of Ld. CIT(A) in confirming the addition of Rs.4,26,021/- made by the AO on account of ca…

Tejraj Manroop Chand Tak, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer 18(3)(4), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of assessee is partly allowed

ITA 2113/MUM/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai01 Nov 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh

For Appellant: Shri Bharat Kumar, ARFor Respondent: Shri BS Bist, DR
Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 234A

…ee. Aggrieved, assessee preferred the appeal before CIT(A), who restricted the disallowance at 12.5% of the bogus purchases by observing in paras 4.3.2 & 4.3.3 by following the decision of Hon’ble Gujarat High court in the case of CIT vs. Smith P. Seth (2013) 356 ITR 451 (Guj) by observing as under: - “4.3.2. The Hon'ble ITAT, Ahmedabad 'C' Bench in the case of Vijay Proteins Ltd. vs. ACIT 58 LTD 0428 held that in similar circumstances, 25% of the purchase price accounted through fictitious invoices has to be disallowed. The Hon'ble High Court of Gujarat in the case of Sanjay Oil cakes v/s CIT 316 ITR 0274 deal…

Ranjan Ramesh Doshi, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer Ward-27(3)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of assessee is partly allowed

ITA 1071/MUM/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai01 Nov 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh

For Appellant: Shri KL Vajani, ARFor Respondent: Shri SK Bepari, DR
Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 147

…urned income of the assessee Aggrieved, assessee preferred the appeal before CIT(A). The CIT(A) also confirmed the action of the AO by observing in paras 5.3.5 by following the decision of Hon’ble Gujarat High court in the case of CIT vs. Smith P. Seth (2013) 356 ITR 451 (Guj) by observing as under: - 4 “5.3.5 In view of the facts and circumstances of the case and the judicial pronouncements cited above, what can’t be disallowed or taxed in the instant case, is the excess profit element embedded in such purchases shown to have been made from aforesaid parties. As narrated earlier, the AO in this case has held t…

Rajal Enterprises, Mumbai vs. Pr.CIT -29, Mumbai

In the result, assessee’s appeal is allowed

ITA 2273/MUM/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Oct 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Jm & Shri N.K.Pradhan, Am आमकय अऩीर सं./I.T.A. No.2273/Mum/2018 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Years: 2011-12) Rajal Enterprises Pr. Commissioner Of Income Tax – 201, Rushabh, B. R. Road, 29 Room No.C–10, 3Rd Floor, Kalp Nagari, Mulund West, बिाम/ Mumbai – 400080 Pratyakshakar Bhavan, Vs. Bandra Kurla Complex, Bandra (East) Mumbai – 400051 स्थामी रेखा सं./जीआइआय सं ./Pan/Gir No. Aajfr5374H (अऩीराथी /Appellant) (प्रत्मथी / Respondent) : अऩीराथी की ओय से / Appellant By : Shri Hitesh Shah प्रत्मथी की ओय से/Respondent By : Shri Manish K. Singh

For Appellant: Shri Hitesh ShahFor Respondent: Shri Manish K. Singh
Section 133(6)Section 143(1)Section 147Section 263

…de from the concerned party. However, he observed that the purchases and corresponding sales made by the assessee have been recorded in the books of accounts. Therefore, relying upon the decision of Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in case of CIT V/s. Simit P. Seth 356 ITR 451 and the decision of the same High Court in case of CIT V/s. Bholanath Polyfab Pvt. Ltd. estimated the profit @ 10% of the alleged bogus purchases and made an addition of `.5,13,630/–. After completion of assessment as aforesaid, learned PCIT in exercise of power conferred under section 263 of the Act called for and examined the assessment records…