“bogus purchases”

DisallowancesSection 69CSection 69C9,532 judgments

The decision most relied on for bogus purchases is CIT v. Bholanath Poly Fab. Pvt. Ltd. (355 ITR 290), cited in 712 judgments on BharatTax.

Leading authorities on bogus purchases

CIT v. Bholanath Poly Fab. Pvt. Ltd.

355 ITR 290 · 2013 · High Court

712

citing judgments

If an assessee makes purchases from bogus parties, but the underlying goods are genuinely acquired and sold, only the profit margin embedded in such purchases, and not the entire value of the bogus purchases, should be added to the assessee's income.

Sanjay Oilcake Industries v. CIT

316 ITR 274 · 2009 · High Court

460

citing judgments

In cases of alleged bogus or unverifiable purchases, rather than disallowing the entire purchase value, a reasonable profit element or a proportionate percentage of the purchases should be added back to the assessee's income.

Vijay Proteins Ltd. v. Asst. CIT

58 ITD 428 · 1996 · ITAT

430

citing judgments

Where purchases are found to be non-genuine or fictitious, a reasonable disallowance of 25% of such purchases or the peak credit, whichever is higher, can be made. This is applied to address unexplained expenditure under Section 69C when actual goods are likely procured from the grey market.

CIT v. Odeon Builders Pvt. ltd.

418 ITR 315 · 2019 · Supreme Court

408

citing judgments

Income tax additions cannot be sustained merely on the basis of uncorroborated statements or allegations. The Revenue must bring on record sufficient material and allow the assessee to produce evidence to prove such additions.

Nikunj Eximp Enterprises v. CIT

216 Taxmann 171 · 2013 · High Court

325

citing judgments

Purchases may be treated as genuine even if the purchase parties are untraceable or not available for verification, as long as there is no specific evidence from the parties themselves denying the transactions or proving them to be bogus.

CIT v. Shyam R. Pawar

54 Taxmann.com 108 · 2015 · High Court

279

citing judgments

Transactions involving the purchase and sale of shares cannot be considered bogus where the assessee provides documentary evidence, unless the revenue brings substantial evidence on record to reject such proof. This principle is consistently applied in cases concerning claims of bogus long-term capital gains arising from penny stock transactions.

CIT v. Simit P. Seth

38 Taxmann.com 385 · 2013 · High Court

278

citing judgments

When an assessee obtains accommodation bills for purchases but the corresponding sales are genuine, the addition to income is limited to the gross profit margin embedded in such purchases. This principle acknowledges that the underlying sales were real, but profit was suppressed through bogus invoices.

CIT v. Vijay M. Mistry Construction Ltd.

355 ITR 498 · 2013 · High Court

252

citing judgments

In cases of alleged bogus or hawala purchases where the existence of transactions is not entirely denied, only the profit element embedded in such purchases, and not the entire purchase price, can be added to the assessee's income. The focus is on determining a reasonable profit percentage for such additions.

Judgments citing bogus purchases

Jeni Ahay Shah, Mumbai vs. ITO 27(1) (C), Vashi

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

ITA 1930/MUM/2021[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 Jun 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri M Balaganesh & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadalejeni Abhay Shah Vs. Ito – 27(1)(5) 902, A Wing, Bldg Vashi Rly Station No.88, R.S. Money, Navi Mumabi – Supermarket, Vrushali 400701. Apartments, Tilak Nagar, Mumbai – 400089. "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Axvps3431M Appellant .. Respondent Appellant By : None Respondent By : Shri S.N.Kabra.Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing 01.06.2022 Date Of Pronouncement 06.06.2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Pavan Kumar Gadale Jm: The Assessee Has Filed The Appeal Against The Order Of Cit(A)- National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac) Delhi Passed U/S 271(1)(C) & 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal. Jeni Abhay Shah, Mumbai 1. The Ld. Ao Erred On Facts & In Law In Levying Penalty U/S 271(1)(C) On Adhoc & On Unverified Presumptive Addition Of Alleged Bogus Purchases.

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri S.N.kabra.Sr.DR

Section 133(6)Section 143Section 143(3)Section 148Section 271(1)(c)

erred on facts and in law in levying penalty u/s 271(1)(c) on adhoc and on unverified presumptive addition of alleged bogus purchases. 2. The NFAC has not given proper and sufficient opportunity of hearing and submissions and passed the impugned order during full lockdown of covid pandemic, despite ... disclosing a total income of Rs. 2,49,500/-. The A.O has received the information from DGIT(Inv) that the assessee has obtained the bogus purchases bills to the extent of Rs. 39,82,532/- from ten parties. Therefore the A.O has reason to believe that the income has escaped

Mr. Shahzad Ebrahim Zaveri, Mumbai vs. ITO Ward 21(3)93), Mumbai

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

ITA 578/MUM/2020[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 Jun 2022AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri Gagan Goyalmr. Shahzad Ebrahim Vs. Ito, – 21(3)(3) Zaveri Piramal Chamber, 301/302 Buildage Lalbaug, Parel, House, 146, Veer Mumbai - 400012 Savarkar Marg, Mahim (W), Mumbai – 400016 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaapz0335M Appellant .. Respondent Appellant By : Ms.Dinkle Hariya.Ar Respondent By : Mr.Pramod Nikalje.Dr Date Of Hearing 16.06.2022 Date Of Pronouncement 20.06.2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Pavan Kumar Gadale Jm: The Assessee Has Filed The Appeal Against The Order Of The Cit(A)- National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac) Delhi Passed U/S 143(3) & 250 Of The Act. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal:

For Appellant: Ms.Dinkle Hariya.ARFor Respondent: Mr.Pramod Nikalje.DR

Section 133(6)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 69C

making addition to the extent of Rs. 5,00,000/-, being 12.5% of Rs. 40,00,000/- out of total alleged bogus purchases / unexplained expenditure u/s. 69C of the Act. 3.2 It is submitted that in the facts and the circumstances of the case, and in law, no such addition ... dealt on the various aspects and was not satisfied with the submissions and estimated the profit element GP @22.35% on alleged bogus purchases which worked out to Rs.8,94,000/- and assessed the total income of Rs.26,85,040/- and passed the order u/s 143(3) r.w.s

A.G. Conveying Systems Pvt.Ltd, Pune vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax, Circle - 1 (2), Pune

Appeal is allowed in above terms

ITA 1645/PUN/2019[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Pune15 Jun 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara, Jm & Shri Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.1645/Pun/2019 ननधधारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2009-10

For Appellant: Shri S.N.PuranikFor Respondent: Shri S. P. Walimbe

Section 271(1)(c)

penalty of Rs. 7,59,000/- in their respective orders, we note at the outset that the corresponding quantum disallowance/addition of bogus purchases amounting to Rs. 22,33,000/- itself stands deleted in the National e- Assessment Centre Delhi’s consequential assessment order dated 23.04.2021 passed in furtherance

Mr. Ratansingh M. Rathod, Mumbai vs. Asstt. CIT - 32(3), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 1869/MUM/2020[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai15 Jun 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Bleshri Ratansingh M. Rathore V. Acit -32(3) 502, Sushila Apartment Room No. 732, 7Th Floor Devidas Lane, Borivali (W) Kautilya Bhavan Mumbai - 400092 Bandra Kurla Complex Bandra(E), Mumbai - 400051 Pan: Aacpr4164L (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Subhash Chhajed Department By : Shri T. Shankar

For Appellant: Shri Subhash ChhajedFor Respondent: Shri T. Shankar

case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in confirming the addition of Rs. 61,25,094/- being the 12.5% of total alleged bogus purchases of Rs. 4,90,00,753/- merely on the basis of information from DGIT (Inv.), Mumbai/Sales Tax Department Mumbai and without considering the fact ... ITAT 4 Order dated 13/01/2015 in Appeal No. 5298/mum/2013 in appellants own case for A.Y. 2010-11 wherein the entire addition in respect of bogus purchases was fully deleted.” 3 Shri Ratansingh M. Rathore 3. At the time of hearing, Ld. AR submitted that Assessing Officer has disallowed treating

Garg Acrylics Ltd., New Delhi vs. Addl. CIT, Special Range- 4, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 5872/DEL/2018[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi14 Jun 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia & Shri Yogesh Kumar Us

For Appellant: Shri Ashwani Kumar, CAFor Respondent: Shri Mithun Shete, Sr.D.R

Section 143(3)Section 14A

hands of assessee.” 3. Ground No.1 is dismissed as not pressed. 4. Ground No.2 concerns additions of Rs.6,50,160/- in relation to alleged bogus purchases of Rs.39,98,522/-. 5. Briefly stated, the assessee is engaged in the business of manufacturing and trading of yarn and garments. The assessee ... made by the assessee from the aforesaid party. The Assessing Officer accordingly made an addition of Rs.7,99,704/- estimating profit embedded in such bogus purchase at 20%. 6. Aggrieved, the assessee preferred appeal before the CIT(A). The CIT(A) has endorsed the action of the Assessing Officer

Raj Kumari Maheshwari, Jaipur vs. Dy CIT, CC-II, Jaipur

In the result, this appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 125/JPR/2021[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur13 Jun 2022AY 2010-11

For Appellant: Shri R. K. Bhatra (C.A.)For Respondent: Ms Monisha Choudhary (JCIT) a

Section 153ASection 271Section 271(1)(c)

additions were made by the A.O. and confirmed by the ld. CIT (A), however, no additions were made on account of non- genuine or bogus purchases but were estimated additions out of purchases wherein the A.O. by estimating disallowed 25% of the purchases thereof on account of unverifiability of purchases

M/S. Sangeeta Metal (India), Mumbai vs. ACIT -19(3), Mumbai

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

ITA 141/MUM/2021[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Jun 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh () & Kavitha Rajagopal () M/S Sangeeta Metal (India) Vs Acit-19(3), Mumbai Room No.206, 2Nd Floor, Matru 26/24, Ground Floor, 6B/1 Sindhi Lane, Mumbai-400 004 Mandir Building, Tardeo Road Pan : Aaffs6604P Mumbai-400 007 Appellant Respondent

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 271(1)(c)

assessment under section 147 and the addition of Rs.22,00,556/- on account of possible profit element at 12.5% on account of bogus purchases made as per information from sales-tax department and other ancillary ground being interest under sections 234B and 234C alongwith penalty under section ... appeal before us challenging the order of the Ld.CIT(A). The Ld.AR stated that it was only the profit on account of bogus purchases that shall be taxed and not the entire purchases in itself and relied on the principle reiterated in the decision of Hon’ble Gujarat High Court

ITO - 22(3)(6), Mumbai vs. Shi Rohit Chandulal Vora, Mumbai

In the result, this appeal is dismissed

ITA 173/MUM/2021[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Jun 2022AY 2011-12

Section 143(3)

right in restricting addition made by the A.0 amounting to Rs.2,21,168/- is 25% of total bogus purchase of Rs. 8, 84,672/-, ignoring the fact that the action of the Assessing Officer was based on credible information received from the Director General of Income Tax (Investigation), Mumbai received ... Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the CIT(A) is right in estimating addition on account of bogus purchase to 25% of such purchases as against the estimation by the AO of 100% of bogus purchases without appreciating that the assessee had failed

Virendrakumar Vijayvargia, Mumbai vs. ACIT CC1(3), Mumbai

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

ITA 383/MUM/2022[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Jun 2022AY 2015-16

Section 143(3)Section 147

case and in law the Ld. CIT (A) erred in confirming the addition of alleged commission income arising out of alleged bogus unsecured loans, bogus purchases and bogus sales amounting to Rs. 19,78,ISO/- on protective basis without appreciating the fact that the same amount has been substantively added ... erred in confirming the addition of alleged commission income arising out of alleged bogus unsecured loans, bogus sales and bogus purchases and also confirming the addition of gross profit, on estimation basis, of a percentage of the total turnover, without appreciating the fact that both such additions cannot coexist together

Sampatkumar S. Dadhich, Mumbai vs. ACIT CC 1(3), Mumbai

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

ITA 345/MUM/2022[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Jun 2022AY 2015-16

Section 143(3)Section 147

Sonam Gems Pvt. Ltd, Mumbai vs. ACIT CC 1(3), Mumbai

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

ITA 315/MUM/2022[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Jun 2022AY 2015-16

Section 143(3)Section 147

Gagan Chandaliya, Surat vs. ACIT CC -1(3), Mumbai

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

ITA 305/MUM/2022[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Jun 2022AY 2015-16

Section 143(3)Section 147

DCIT CC-8(1), Mumbai vs. Deepak Fertilisers & Petrochemicals Corporation Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, appeal by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 2183/MUM/2021[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Jun 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri Viral ShahFor Respondent: Ms. Shailja Rai, CIT–DR

Section 143(3)Section 250

circumstances of the case and in law, the learned CIT(A) erred in deleting the addition of Rs.2,71,688, as bogus purchase in the case of M/s. Dipali Enterprises as also confirmed by the Sales Tax (VAT) Department, Govt. of Maharashtra, that M/s. Dipali Enterprises had not done ... only grievance of the Revenue in the present appeal is against deletion of addition of Rs.2,71,688, made on account of bogus purchases by the assessee. 4. The brief facts of the case, as emanating from the record, are: The assessee is engaged in the business of manufacture

M/S Shankarlal B Bhansali (HUF), Mumbai vs. ITO Ward 19(3)(3), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 4459/MUM/2019[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 Jun 2022AY 2009-10

Section 143(3)

Shankarlal B Bhansali (HUF) 2. The only issue to be decided in this appeal is challenging the addition made on account of bogus purchases apart from challenging the validity of re-assessment. 3. None appeared on behalf of the assessee. We have heard ld. DR and perused the materials available ... written submissions both for the legal issue of validity of re-assessment as well as the addition made on account of bogus purchases. We find that the assessee is engaged in the business of trading in ferrous and non- ferrous metals. It is not in dispute that assessee bought certain

Blues Innovations India P. Ltd, Mumbai vs. ITO-12(1)(3), Mumbai

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

ITA 1331/MUM/2021[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai07 Jun 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri Gagan Goyalblues It Innovations Vs. Ito – 12(1)(3) India Pvt Ltd., Ab 145A, Aayakar B-101, Bhumi Enclave, Bhavan, Mahaveer Nagar, Mumbai -400020. Kandivali (W) Mumbai – 400067. "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaccb4562D Appellant .. Respondent Appellant By : None Respondent By : Shri Pramod Nikalje.Dr Date Of Hearing 15.06.2022 Date Of Pronouncement 20.06.2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Pavan Kumar Gadale Jm: The Assessee Has Filed The Appeal Against The Order Of Cit(A)- National Faceless Appeal Centre(Nfac) Delhi Passed U/S 271(1)(C) & 250 Of The Act. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal:

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Pramod Nikalje.DR

Section 142(1)Section 143Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)

Officer (A.O) as per the information received from the DGIT(Inv) Mumbai based on sales tax authorities facts, find that the assessee has claimed bogus purchases aggregating to Rs. 13,00,711/- from the four parties. The A.O to test check the information has issued notice ... dated 28.12.2016. 3. Subsequently, the A.O. has initiated penalty proceedings u/s271(1)(c) of the Act, Since the assessee has entered into bogus purchase transactions, the A.O relied on the findings in the scrutiny assessment and the assessee has not filed the reply/explanations in the penalty proceedings. Finally

The ITO, Ward-1(2)(3), Surat vs. Shri Manojkumar Sriniwas Pacheriwala, Surat

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 868/AHD/2015[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Surat03 Jun 2022AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini(Hearing In Virtual Court) Income Tax Officer, Shri Manojkumar Sriniwas Ward-1(2)(3), Room No.118, Pacheriwala, Prop. Ginni Vs 1Stfloor, Aayakar Bhavan, International, Majura Gate, Surat-395001 4002, Indradhanush Flats, Nr. Chandan Park, B/H Agrasen Bhavan, City Light, Surat-395007 Pan : Abjpp3803 E Appellant / Revenue Respondent / Assessee

Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 254(1)Section 44ASection 68

case, whether the Ld. CIT(A) was justified in deleting the addition made of Rs.1,68,15,995/- on account of unverifiable (bogus) purchases even though specific findings were made by the AO viz. export invoices are incomplete and not Sh. Manojkumar S Pacheriwala countersigned by the customs authorities, names ... case was selected for scrutiny. The Assessing Officer while passing the assessment order under section143(3) on 31.12.2007 made addition on account of bogus purchase of Rs.6.72 crores by taking view that purchase are not genuine and that from the parties from whom the assessee has shown purchase were

Income Tax Officer, Ward 1(4), Raipur vs. Mesers Drolia Enterprises, Raipur

In the result, appeal of the department is dismissed

ITA 9/RPR/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur02 Jun 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Rathod Kamlesh Jayantbhaiआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No. 09/Rpr/2019 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2010-11 Ito 1(4), Raipur .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. M/S Drolia Enterprises, Kapil Complex, Gurunanak Chowk, Kelkarpara, Raipur (C.G) Pan : Aadfd7319N ……""यथ" / Respondent Assessee By : Shri Praveen Goyal Revenue By : Shri G.N Singh

For Appellant: Shri Praveen GoyalFor Respondent: Shri G.N Singh

Section 250(4)

case, the Ld. CIT(A) was justified in deleting the addition Rs.1,49,130/- ignoring the fact that these purchase ware nothing but bogus purchases managed through bogus bills"?. 2. "Whether on points of law and on facts & circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) having concurrent powers

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 1(1), Raipur vs. Mesers Refracast Metallurgicals Private Limited, Raipur

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed in terms of our aforesaid observations

ITA 12/RPR/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur02 Jun 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Rathod Kamlesh Jayantbhaiआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No. 12/Rpr/2019 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2014-15 Asstt. Commissioner Of Income-Tax-1(1), Raipur .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. M/S Refracast Metallurgicals Pvt. Ltd. 23, Industrial Area, Birgaon, Raipur Pan : Aabcr4431J ……""यथ" / Respondent Assessee By : Shri Praveen Goyal Revenue By : Shri G. N. Singh

For Appellant: Shri Praveen GoyalFor Respondent: Shri G. N. Singh

Section 143(3)Section 250(4)

case, the Ld. CIT(A) was justified in deleting the addition Rs.2,82,522/- ignoring the fact that these purchases are nothing, but bogus purchases managed through bogus bills?" 2. Whether on points of law and on facts & circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) having concurrent powers

Shri Pravin Champalal Bokadia, Mumbai vs. ITO WD-19(2) (5), Mumbai

ITA 7/MUM/2022[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai02 Jun 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Amarjit Singh आअसं.07/मुं/2022 ("न.व. 2011-12) Shri Pravin Champalal Bokadia, 77, Dr. Mahimtura Marg, 3Rd Kumbharwada, Near Cp Tank, Mumbai -400 004. Pan: Aaqpb-4778-E ...... अपीलाथ" /Appellant बनाम Vs. Ito,Ward 19(2)(5), Room No.210, 2Nd Floor, Matru Mandir, Tardeo Road, Grant Road(W) Mumbai 400 007. ..... ""तवाद"/Respondent अपीलाथ" "वारा/ Appellant By : Shri Rajiv Khandelwal ""तवाद" "वारा/Respondent By : Shri R.A.Dhyani सुनवाई क" "त"थ/ Date Of Hearing : 02/06/2022 घोषणा क" "त"थ/ Date Of Pronouncement : 02/06/2022 आदेश/ Order Per Vikas Awasthy, Jm:

For Appellant: Shri Rajiv KhandelwalFor Respondent: Shri R.A.Dhyani

Section 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

penalty u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act has been levied by the Assessing Officer in respect of addition made on account of alleged bogus purchases. The ld.Authorized Representative for the assessee made two fold submissions against penalty order. The first contention of the ld.Authorized Representative for the assessee ... contra, Shri R.A.Dhyani representing the Department defended the impugned order. The ld. Departmental Representative submitted that the assessee has indulged in obtaining bogus purchase bills. The assessee has not been able to prove the genuineness of the hawala dealers and purchases made 3 from them. Hence, the Assessing Officer

Prabhulal Kalji Doshi, Mumbai vs. ITO -19(2)(5), Mumbai

In the result, appeal by assessee is allowed

ITA 745/MUM/2021[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai02 Jun 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Amarjit Singh आअसं.745/मुं/2021 ("न.व. 2011-12) Prabhulal Kalji Doshi, Room No.65, Moti Mention, 5Th Khetwadi Lane, Mumbai 400 004 Pan: Adwpd-9204-C ...... अपीलाथ" /Appellant बनाम Vs. I.T.O 19(2)(5), 2Nd Floor, Matru Mandir, Tardeo Road, Mumbai 400 051. ..... ""तवाद"/Respondent अपीलाथ" "वारा/ Appellant By : None ""तवाद" "वारा/Respondent By : Shri R.A.Dhyani सुनवाई क" "त"थ/ Date Of Hearing : 02/06/2022 घोषणा क" "त"थ/ Date Of Pronouncement : 02/06/2022 आदेश/ Order Per Vikas Awasthy, Jm:

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri R.A.Dhyani

Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)

case of assessee for assessment year 2011-12 was reopened on the basis of information received from DGIT(Investigation) that the assessee has obtained bogus purchase bills from various dealers declared as hawala operators by the Sales Tax Department, Government of Maharashtra. During the course of assessment proceedings the assessee ... failed to discharge his onus in proving genuineness of purchases. The Assessing Officer made estimated addition of 12.5% of alleged bogus purchases. Against the assessment order dated 08/01/2016 passed under section 143(3) r.w.s. 147 of the Act, the assessee filed appeal before the CIT(A). The CIT(A) granted