“Commissioner (Appeals)”

Chapter I - PreliminarySection 2 - DefinitionsSection 2(16A) / Section 1174,761 judgments

The decision most relied on for Commissioner (Appeals) is Jute Corporation of India Ltd. v. CIT (187 ITR 688), cited in 1,372 judgments on BharatTax.

Leading authorities on Commissioner (Appeals)

Jute Corporation of India Ltd. v. CIT

187 ITR 688 · 1991 · Supreme Court

1,372

citing judgments

The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) possesses co-terminus powers with the Assessing Officer and can direct the Assessing Officer to perform actions he failed to do, but cannot introduce a new source of income in the assessment. The appellate assessment must be confined to the items of income that were the subject matter of the original assessment.

CIT v. Premkumar Arjundas Luthra (HUF)

297 CTR 614 · 2017 · High Court

659

citing judgments

The Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) cannot dismiss an appeal for non-prosecution or default in appearance. Under Section 250(6) of the Income-tax Act, the CIT(A) must decide the appeal on its merits, even in an ex parte proceeding.

Ahmedabad Electricity Co. Ltd. v. CIT

199 ITR 351 · 1993 · High Court

441

citing judgments

Appellate authorities can consider additional grounds for deduction, even if not originally claimed before the Assessing Officer or Appellate Assistant Commissioner, provided the facts are not disputed and it pertains to a legal claim for correct tax liability. This is because the purpose of an appeal is to ascertain the correct tax liability.

CIT v. Kanpur Coal Syndicate

53 ITR 225 · 1964 · Supreme Court

359

citing judgments

The Commissioner (Appeals) holds plenary powers when disposing of an appeal, with their scope being coterminous with the Assessing Officer. This allows the CIT(A) to exercise all powers of the AO, including admitting additional evidence and redetermining income.

CIT v. Shapoorji Pallonji Mistry

44 ITR 891 · 1962 · Supreme Court

278

citing judgments

The Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) cannot enhance an assessment by introducing a new source of income or by changing the head of income during appellate proceedings.

Commissioner of Income Tax Madras v. Chenniyappa Mudiliar

1 SCC 591 · 1985 · Reported

225

citing judgments

The appellate tribunal must render a proper decision on both facts and law, disposing of an appeal on its merits rather than dismissing it solely due to the appellant's absence. This obligation is derived from Section 33(4) of the Income Tax Act, 1922, and reflects principles of natural justice.

Mahindra and Mahindra Ltd. v. DCIT

30 SOT 374 · 2009 · ITAT

201

citing judgments

The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) cannot expand the scope of an assessment or improve the Assessing Officer's case in a manner that usurps the revisional power of the Commissioner of Income Tax under Section 263 of the Income-tax Act.

CIT v. Jansampark Advertising & Marketing (P.) Ltd.

56 Taxmann.com 286 · 2015 · High Court

196

citing judgments

The Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) has an independent statutory obligation to conduct proper inquiries and verify facts, especially when the Assessing Officer has failed to do so. The CIT(A) must ensure effective inquiry is carried out before deleting additions or accepting additional evidence.

Judgments citing Commissioner (Appeals)

DCIT Central Circle 5(3), Mumbai vs. Kalpataru Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, both the appeals of the revenue are stand dismissed

ITA 1447/MUM/2022[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Oct 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Shri Amarjit Singhita Nos.1447 & 1448/Mum/2022 (A.Ys.2010-11 & 2011-12) The Dy. Commissioner Of Vs. Kalpataru Limited Income Tax, Central Mumbai - 400055 Circle-5(3) Room No. 1906, 19Th Floor, Air India Building, Nariman Point, Mumbai – 400021 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./ Pan/Gir No: Aaack2108K Appellant .. Respondent Appellant By : Vasanti Patel Respondent By : Tejinder Pal Singh Anand Date Of Hearing 03.10.2022 Date Of Pronouncement 20.10.2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amarjit Singh (Am): Both The Appeals Filed By The Revenue Are Directed Against The Order Passed By The Ld. Cit(A)-53, Mumbai, Which In Turn Arises From The Order Passed By The A.O U/S 143(3) R.W.S 147 Of The Act. Since Similar Facts & Identical Issue Are Involved, Therefore, For The Sake Of Convenience Both Appeals Are Adjudicated Together. We Shall Take Ita No. 1448/Mum/2022 As A Lead Case & Its Finding Will Be Applied As Mutatis Mutandis To Other Appeal. The Revenue Has Raised The Following Grounds Before Us:

For Appellant: Vasanti PatelFor Respondent: Tejinder Pal Singh Anand

Section 131Section 143(3)

untenable. The Assessing Officer rejected the contention and made various additions to the income of the assessee on the basis of statement. The Commissioner (Appeals) held that the statement made by a third party in the course of a search could not be attributed to or lead to adverse consequences ... corroborative material to connect those statements to the assessee's assessments and deleted the addition. The Tribunal affirmed the order of the Commissioner (Appeals). On appeals. Held, dismissing the appeals, that the statement under section 132(4) could not bind the assessee, According to section 132(4) a presumption arose

R.Rajagopal Tondaiman, Trichy vs. DCIT Central Circle-1, Trichy

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

ITA 525/CHNY/2020[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai12 Oct 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwalआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.525/Chny/2020 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2010-11 Sri R. Rajagopal Tondaiman, Vs. The Deputy Commissioner Of Old No. 4-D, New No. 22, Collector Income Tax, Office Road, Trichy 620 001. Central Circle 1, Trichy. [Pan:Afbpr0712E] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri R. Viswanathan, Ca ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri G. Johnson, Addl. Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 15.09.2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 12.10.2022 आदेश /O R D E R Per V. Durga Rao: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) 1, Trichy, Dated 30.12.2019 Relevant To The Assessment Year 2010-11. 2. Facts Are, In Brief, That The Assessee Is A Hereditary Of Raja Of Pudukottai & Stated That He Is Assessed To Tax In The Status Of Huf & Individual. The Property At Cenotaph Road, Chennai Was Given To M/S. Doshi Housing Ltd. On A Development Agreement Entered Into On 30.01.2006 Through A Power Of Attorney. The Assessing Officer Has 2

For Appellant: Shri R. Viswanathan, CAFor Respondent: Shri G. Johnson, Addl. CIT

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 54F

conditions were not there in section 80HHC at the time when the assessee filed the returns or even the original assessments were made. The Commissioner (Appeals) and the Tribunal held that the invocation of the proviso to section 147 to be invalid and set aside the reassessments under section 147/148

ACIT, Cir- 14(1)(2), Mumbai vs. Wns Global Services Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 2474/MUM/2021[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Oct 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble

Section 14ASection 32(1)

decisions relied upon by the learned Sr. Counsel for the assessee also supports our aforesaid view. Accordingly, we uphold the decision of the learned Commissioner (Appeals) by dismissing the grounds raised.” Respectfully, following the said order, we set aside the order of the DRP and allow the ground raised

ACIT, Circle 14 (1)(2), Mumbai vs. Wns Global Services Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 2473/MUM/2021[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Oct 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble

Section 14ASection 32(1)

DCIT - 8(2)(1), Mumbai vs. Siemens Technology and Services Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, the appeals of the revenue are dismissed and appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 3247/MUM/2018[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Oct 2022AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Shri Amarjit Singh

For Appellant: P.J. Pardiwala &For Respondent: Ashok Kumar Kardam

Section 10ASection 143(2)Section 143(3)

respect of Unit II and Unit III. The Assessing Officer did not allow deduction under Section 104 In appeal the Commissioner (Appeals) called for the remand report. The Assessing Officer submitted the remand report. The remand report favoured the assessee. However, the Commissioner (Appeals) dismissed the appeal. The assessee filed ... been considered by the Assessing Officer and the 3032 & 3247, 2947/Mum/2018 9 DCIT-8(2)(1) Vs. M/s Siemens Technology and Services Pvt. Ltd. Commissioner (Appeals) However, the Tribunal without considering the finding of the Commissioner (Appeals) has set aside the said finding. The learned counsel relied on the judgment

DCIT - 8(2)(1), Mumbai vs. Siemens Technology & Services Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, the appeals of the revenue are dismissed and appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 3032/MUM/2018[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Oct 2022AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Shri Amarjit Singh

For Appellant: P.J. Pardiwala &For Respondent: Ashok Kumar Kardam

Section 10ASection 143(2)Section 143(3)

Siemens Technology & Services Pvt. Ltd.(Erstwhile Known As Siemens Information Systems Ltd.), Mumbai vs. DCIT- Circle -8(2)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeals of the revenue are dismissed and appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 2947/MUM/2018[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Oct 2022AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Shri Amarjit Singh

For Appellant: P.J. Pardiwala &For Respondent: Ashok Kumar Kardam

Section 10ASection 143(2)Section 143(3)

Bhavesh Ghanshyam Advani, Mumbai vs. CIT(Intl Tax)-1, Mumbai

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee are dismissed

ITA 5808/MUM/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 Oct 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey & Shri Gagan Goyal

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Dr. Mahesh Akhade, CIT-DR

assessee aggrieved by any of the following orders may appeal to the Appellate Tribunal against such order— (a) an order passed by a [Deputy Commissioner (Appeals)][before the 1st day of October, 1998] [or, as the case may be, a Commissioner (Appeals)] under [***] [section 154], [***] section 250,[section 270A,][section ... clause (23C) of section 10.] (2) The [Principal Commissioner or] Commissioner may, if he objects to any order passed by a [Deputy Commissioner (Appeals)] before the 1st day of October, 1998] [or, as the case may be, a Commissioner (Appeals)] under [section 154 or] section 250, direct the [Assessing] Officer

M/S. Keva Construction Pvt. Ltd, Mumbai vs. ACIT -15(2) (1), Mumbai

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

ITA 758/MUM/2022[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Oct 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Shri Gagan Goyal

For Appellant: Sh. Saurabh Bhat, C.AFor Respondent: Sh. Tejinder Pal Singh, Sr. DR

Section 36Section 36(1)(iii)

share capital, reserves and surplus and depreciation reserves and, thus, entire investment had been made in sister concern out of interest-free funds - Commissioner (Appeals) accepted assessee's contention and directed Assessing Officer to allow entire amount of interest under section 36(1)(iii) - Tribunal upheld order of Commissioner (Appeals ... instant appeal, it was seen that Commissioner (Appeals) as also Tribunal had recorded a clear finding that assessee had interest-free funds of its own which had been generated in course of year commencing from 1-4-1999 - Further, in terms of balance-sheet there was an availability

Manmohan Didwania, Mumbai vs. ITO 30(2)(4), Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is fully disallowed

ITA 4495/MUM/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Oct 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey & Shri Gagan Goyalmanmohan Didwania M/S Hanuman Trading Corporation, 1-B-5 Rahul Chs, Marve Road, Malad (W), Mumbai-400064. Pan: Aaepd1249E ...... Appellant Vs. Ito- 30(2)(4), Room No. 609, C-13, Bandra Kurla Compex, Bandra (East), Mumbai-400051. ..... Respondent Appellant By : None Respondent By : Sh. Chetan M. Kacha, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 18/07/2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 10/10/2022 Order Per Gagan Goyal, A.M: This Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-41, Mumbai [Hereinafter Referred To As [‘Cit(A)’] Dated 26.04.2019 Passed Under Section 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As [‘The Act’] For The Assessment Year (Ay) 2013-14. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal:

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Sh. Chetan M. Kacha, Sr. DR

Section 131Section 132Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 37Section 68

Steel Pvt Ltd (2019) 103 Taxmann.com-48(S.C) “In the case of NRA Iron & Steel (P) Ltd, (2019) 103 taxmann.com 48 (SC), the Commissioner (Appeals) had deleted the addition made by the Assessing Officer on the ground that the respondent had filed confirmations from the investor companies, their Income

Kokan Mercantila Co Op Bank Ltd, Mumbai vs. ACIT Circle-20(2), Mumbai

In the result we set aside the orders of authorities below and direct to allow the deduction u/s

ITA 651/MUM/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Oct 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Shri Gagan Goyalkokan Mercantile Co-Operative Bank Ltd. Harbour Crest, 1St Floor, Mazagaon, Mumbai-400010. Pan: Aaaak2527P ...... Appellant Vs. Acit, Circle-20(2), Room No. 217, 2Nd Floor, Piramal Chambers, Lalbaug, Parel, Mumbai-400012 ..... Respondent Appellant By : Sh. M. Subramanian, Adv. Respondent By : Sh. Tejinder Pal Singh, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing : 12/07/2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 04/10/2022 Order Per Gagan Goyal, A.M: This Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [Hereinafter Referred To As [‘Nfac’] Dated 21.12.2021 Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As [‘The Act’] For The Assessment Year (Ay) 2017-18. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal:

For Appellant: Sh. M. Subramanian, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Tejinder Pal Singh, Sr.DR

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 234BSection 234CSection 250Section 36(1)

after reducing from the assessee income, the deduction allowable under section 36(1)(viii) and that deductions cannot be granted independent of each provision.The Commissioner (Appeals) affirmed the decision of the Assessing Officer.On appeal, the Tribunal upheld the order of the Commissioner (Appeals).On appeal to the High Court, Held

DCIT Cen Cir 8(4), Mumbai vs. Savita Oil Technologies Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, the Revenue appeal is dismissed and the assessee Cross Objection is allowed

ITA 2323/MUM/2017[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Sept 2022AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Pavankumargadale,Judicialmember & Shri Amarjit Singhdeputy Commissioner Vs. M/S. Savita Oil Of Income Tax-Cc-8(4) Technologies Ltd. 6Th Floor, Room No. 66-67, 658, Aayakarbhavan, Narimanbhawan, M.K. Road, Nariman Point, Mumbai- 400 020 Mumbai- 400 021 Pan No.Aaacs7934A Appellant Respondent

Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 24Section 271Section 271(1)Section 275Section 80I

second question. It is provided that no order imposing a penalty shall be passed where the assessment order is subject to appeal to the Commissioner (Appeals) or to further appeal to the Appellate Tribunal, after the expiry of period of two years from the end of financial year in which

M/S. India Medtronics Pvt.Ltd., Baroda vs. The Dy.CIT., Circle-1(2), Baroda

In the result, similarly the Assessee’s appeal is partly allowed

ITA 480/AHD/2011[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Sept 2022AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Gagan Goyal

For Appellant: Sh. Rajan R. Vora with Sh. Nikhil TiwariFor Respondent: Dr. Yogesh Kamath/ Akhtar Hussain Ansari

Section 234BSection 271Section 274Section 92C

provided by the assessee’s group and is not the actual margin. The aforesaid contention of the assessee has been accepted by the learned Commissioner (Appeals). No material has been brought on record by the Revenue to demonstrate that gross profit margin of 42% is the actual margin ... view of the decision of the Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court in Audco India Ltd. (supra), the contention of the Revenue that learned Commissioner (Appeals) having accepted RPM as the most appropriate method should have undertaken a fresh benchmarking under RPM cannot be accepted. In such circumstances, when no other

Makrand Ratubhai Masrani, Mumbai vs. ITO 16(3) (1), Mumbai

ITA 654/MUM/2022[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Sept 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singhassessment Year: 2009-10

For Appellant: Shri Dalpat Shah, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Azhar Zain Vayal Parambath, D.R

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

instituting the present appeal, before the NFAC, a faceless appeal scheme was not in existence and as such was rightly disposed of by the Commissioner (Appeals) vide order dated 06.12.2017 in appeal bearing No.CIT(A)-7/IT-49/2016-17. In view of the matter, 4 Shri Makrand Ratubhai Masrani impugned order dated

Harakh Samir Mehta, Mumbai vs. ACIT, Ward 19 (2), Mumbai

ITA 6408/MUM/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Sept 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singhassessment Year: 2012-13

For Appellant: Ms. Dinkle Hariya, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Anil Gupta, D.R

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 68

Appeal is, therefore, allowed and the impugned orders dated 26th March, 2004 made by the Assessing Officer, 30th November, 2004 made by the Commissioner (Appeals) and 12th January, 2007 made by the ITAT are set aside on the ground of want of compliance with jurisdictional parameters by the Assessing Officer

M/S. Standard Chartered Bank, Mumbai vs. The ACIT (It)1(3), Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed and appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 803/MUM/2009[1999-2000]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Sept 2022AY 1999-2000

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Blestandard Chartered Bank V. Acit – Range-1(3) Taxation Department, 23-25 Scindia House, Ballard Estate M.G. Road, 3Rd Floor N.M. Marg, Mumbai - 400038 Fort, Mumbai - 400001 Pan: Aabcs4681D (Appellant) (Respondent) Adit (It)– 2(3) V. Standard Chartered Bank Room No. 120, 1St Floor Taxation Department, 23-25 Scindia House, Ballard Estate M.G. Road, 3Rd Floor N.M. Marg, Mumbai - 400038 Fort, Mumbai - 400001 Pan: Aabcs4681D (Appellant) (Respondent) Shri P.J. Pardiwala & Assessee Represented By : Shri Fenil Bhatt Shri Soumendu Kumar Dash Department Represented By :

Section 115JSection 14ASection 90Section 90(2)

such disallowance, assessee preferred appeal before the first appellate authority. 8 ITA NO. 803 & 850/MUM/2009 (A.Y. 1999-2000) Standard Chartered Bank 28. Learned Commissioner (Appeals) after considering the submissions of the assessee having found that there is no nexus between the interest bearing funds and the investment made ... Assessing Officer to delete the disallowance made. 29. We have considered rival submissions and perused material on record. As could be seen, learned Commissioner (Appeals) has recorded a categorical factual finding that the interest bearing funds have no nexus with the investment made in tax free bonds. Further

Dy. CIT CC -7(40), Mumbai vs. Shree Ambica Gems, Mumbai

In the result, both the appeals of the revenue are dismissed and Cross Objection filed by the assessee are dismissed

ITA 1769/MUM/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Sept 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Biren ShahFor Respondent: Pitta Samuel

Section 133ASection 69A

circumstances, there was no justification whatsoever for the Tribunal to have deleted the additions made by the Assessing Officer which were upheld by the Commissioner (Appeals). The question framed is answered in affirmative. 9.3.8 Further, it is found that in the said affidavit Shri Ghanshyam Kalsariya has merely stated that

Magan Vadhaji Prajapati, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer WD 19(2) 93), Mumbai

In the result, appeal by the assessee for assessment year 2009–10 is partly allowed

ITA 560/MUM/2022[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 Sept 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri Bharat KumarFor Respondent: Shri Ajeya Kumar Ojha, Sr. AR

Section 133Section 143Section 147Section 250

declared the gross profit at 3.56 per cent of the total turnover. If the yardstick of 30 per cent, as adopted by the Commissioner (Appeals), is accepted the gross profit rate will be much higher. In essence, the Tribunal only estimated the possible profit out of purchases made through

Magan Vadhaji Prajapati, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer WD 19(2) (3), Mumbai

In the result, appeal by the assessee for assessment year 2009–10 is partly allowed

ITA 559/MUM/2022[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 Sept 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri Bharat KumarFor Respondent: Shri Ajeya Kumar Ojha, Sr. AR

Section 133Section 143Section 147Section 250

Ram Ujagir Ram Sabda Pandey, Mumbai vs. Circle 20(3) (1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed with the above directions

ITA 2254/MUM/2021[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 Sept 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Shri Gagan Goyal

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Sh. Ashish Kumar, Sr. DR

Section 133(6)Section 147Section 148Section 33(6)Section 69CSection 69c

Unexplained expenditure (Bogus purchases) - Assessment year 2011-12 - Assessing Officer treated purchases made by assessee as bogus purchases and disallowed in totality - Commissioner (Appeals) directed Assessing Officer to disallow 12.5 per cent of bogus purchases and to add 12.5 per cent of amount of purchases to income of assessee - Tribunal ... upheld view of Commissioner (Appeals) - Revenue contended before High Court that bogus purchases ought to have been disallowed in totality - It was noted that if factum of sales had been accepted by department then even if it was established that there were bogus purchases, it was not necessary that entire