← All Phrases

“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

Smt. Rita Ben Niravbhai Patel, Surat vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1, Surat

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee in in ITA No

ITA 578/SRT/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Surat30 Jul 2021AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.576/Srt/2018 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: (2014-15) (Virtual Court Hearing) Smt.Hemanginiben B Patel, V The Deputy Commissioner Of 28, Sangam Society, Parle Point, Surat. Income Tax, Circle-3, Surat. S. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Afipp 2238 Q (Assessee) (Respondent) आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.577/Srt/2018 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: (2014-15) Smt. Bhavnaben Arvindbhai Patel, V The Deputy Commissioner Of 27, Adarshnagar Society, Ambatalawadi S. Income Tax, Central Circle-1, Katargam, Surat – 395004. Surat. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Ablpp 4358 M (Assessee) (Respondent) आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.578/Srt/2018 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: (2014-15) Smt. Ritaben Niravbhai Patel, V The Deputy Commissioner Of 1003-1004, Santvan Heights, S. Income Tax, Central Circle-1, Laxmikant Ashram Road, Katargam, Surat. Surat – 395004. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Alxpp 0357 M (Assessee) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Vartik Choksi - Ca Respondent By : Ms.Anupama Singla – Sr.Dr सुनवाईक"तार"ख/ Date Of Hearing : 07/07/2021 घोषणाक"तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 30/07/2021 आदेश / O R D E R Per Dr. A. L. Saini: Captioned Three Appeals Filed By Different Assessees, Pertaining To Assessment Year 2014-15, Are Directed Against The Separate Orders Passed By The Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) [Ld. Cit(A)], Which In Turn Arise Out Of Separate Penalty Order & Assessment Orders Passed By The Assessing Officer Under

For Appellant: Shri Vartik Choksi - CAFor Respondent: Ms.Anupama Singla – Sr.DR
Section 143(3)Section 271A

Rs.6,08,046/- in case of Smt. Bhavanaben A.Patel and addition of Rs.6,10,330/-, in case of Smt.Ritaben Nirvabhai Patel, on account of bogus purchases under section 69C of the Act. 10. Grounds of appeal raised by the assessee in ITA No.578/SRT/2018 for the A.Y. 2014-15 in case ... circumstances of the assessee's case, the learned CIT(A) has grossly erred in confirming addition of Rs.6,10,330/- on account of bogus purchase under section 69C of the Act, where such disallowance is uncalled for. The Assessing Officer may be directed to delete the same

Smt. Bhavnaben Arvindbhai Patel, Surat vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1, Surat

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee in in ITA No

ITA 577/SRT/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Surat30 Jul 2021AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.576/Srt/2018 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: (2014-15) (Virtual Court Hearing) Smt.Hemanginiben B Patel, V The Deputy Commissioner Of 28, Sangam Society, Parle Point, Surat. Income Tax, Circle-3, Surat. S. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Afipp 2238 Q (Assessee) (Respondent) आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.577/Srt/2018 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: (2014-15) Smt. Bhavnaben Arvindbhai Patel, V The Deputy Commissioner Of 27, Adarshnagar Society, Ambatalawadi S. Income Tax, Central Circle-1, Katargam, Surat – 395004. Surat. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Ablpp 4358 M (Assessee) (Respondent) आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.578/Srt/2018 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: (2014-15) Smt. Ritaben Niravbhai Patel, V The Deputy Commissioner Of 1003-1004, Santvan Heights, S. Income Tax, Central Circle-1, Laxmikant Ashram Road, Katargam, Surat. Surat – 395004. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Alxpp 0357 M (Assessee) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Vartik Choksi - Ca Respondent By : Ms.Anupama Singla – Sr.Dr सुनवाईक"तार"ख/ Date Of Hearing : 07/07/2021 घोषणाक"तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 30/07/2021 आदेश / O R D E R Per Dr. A. L. Saini: Captioned Three Appeals Filed By Different Assessees, Pertaining To Assessment Year 2014-15, Are Directed Against The Separate Orders Passed By The Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) [Ld. Cit(A)], Which In Turn Arise Out Of Separate Penalty Order & Assessment Orders Passed By The Assessing Officer Under

For Appellant: Shri Vartik Choksi - CAFor Respondent: Ms.Anupama Singla – Sr.DR
Section 143(3)Section 271A

Rs.6,08,046/- in case of Smt. Bhavanaben A.Patel and addition of Rs.6,10,330/-, in case of Smt.Ritaben Nirvabhai Patel, on account of bogus purchases under section 69C of the Act. 10. Grounds of appeal raised by the assessee in ITA No.578/SRT/2018 for the A.Y. 2014-15 in case ... circumstances of the assessee's case, the learned CIT(A) has grossly erred in confirming addition of Rs.6,10,330/- on account of bogus purchase under section 69C of the Act, where such disallowance is uncalled for. The Assessing Officer may be directed to delete the same

Smt. Hemanginiben B. Patel, Surat vs. DCIT, Central Circle-3, Surat

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee in in ITA No

ITA 576/SRT/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Surat30 Jul 2021AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.576/Srt/2018 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: (2014-15) (Virtual Court Hearing) Smt.Hemanginiben B Patel, V The Deputy Commissioner Of 28, Sangam Society, Parle Point, Surat. Income Tax, Circle-3, Surat. S. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Afipp 2238 Q (Assessee) (Respondent) आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.577/Srt/2018 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: (2014-15) Smt. Bhavnaben Arvindbhai Patel, V The Deputy Commissioner Of 27, Adarshnagar Society, Ambatalawadi S. Income Tax, Central Circle-1, Katargam, Surat – 395004. Surat. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Ablpp 4358 M (Assessee) (Respondent) आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.578/Srt/2018 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: (2014-15) Smt. Ritaben Niravbhai Patel, V The Deputy Commissioner Of 1003-1004, Santvan Heights, S. Income Tax, Central Circle-1, Laxmikant Ashram Road, Katargam, Surat. Surat – 395004. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Alxpp 0357 M (Assessee) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Vartik Choksi - Ca Respondent By : Ms.Anupama Singla – Sr.Dr सुनवाईक"तार"ख/ Date Of Hearing : 07/07/2021 घोषणाक"तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 30/07/2021 आदेश / O R D E R Per Dr. A. L. Saini: Captioned Three Appeals Filed By Different Assessees, Pertaining To Assessment Year 2014-15, Are Directed Against The Separate Orders Passed By The Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) [Ld. Cit(A)], Which In Turn Arise Out Of Separate Penalty Order & Assessment Orders Passed By The Assessing Officer Under

For Appellant: Shri Vartik Choksi - CAFor Respondent: Ms.Anupama Singla – Sr.DR
Section 143(3)Section 271A

Rs.6,08,046/- in case of Smt. Bhavanaben A.Patel and addition of Rs.6,10,330/-, in case of Smt.Ritaben Nirvabhai Patel, on account of bogus purchases under section 69C of the Act. 10. Grounds of appeal raised by the assessee in ITA No.578/SRT/2018 for the A.Y. 2014-15 in case ... circumstances of the assessee's case, the learned CIT(A) has grossly erred in confirming addition of Rs.6,10,330/- on account of bogus purchase under section 69C of the Act, where such disallowance is uncalled for. The Assessing Officer may be directed to delete the same

Income Tax Officer 32 (1) (2), Mumbai vs. Shri Ashish Ashwinbhai Mehta, Mumbai

Appeal of the Revenue is dismissed, sans merit

ITA 5792/MUM/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Jul 2021AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwalआअसं. 5792/मुं/2019 (िन.व.2010-11) Ito-32(1)(2), Room No. 704, 7Th Floor, Kautilya Bhavan, Bandra Kurla Complex, Bandra (E), Mumbai-400051. ...... अपीलाथ+ /Appellant बनाम Vs. Shri Ashish Ashwinbhai Mehta ‘B’ Wing No.12, Estee Geejay Society, Saibaba Nagar, Borivali (W), Mumbai-400092. Pan: Ahvpm8168P ..... ,ितवाद./Respondent अपीलाथ+ /ारा/ Appellant By : Sh. Sanjay J. Sethi ,ितवाद. /ारा/Respondent By : None सुनवाई क0 ितिथ/ Date Of Hearing : 09/06/2021 घोषणा क0 ितिथ/ Date Of Pronouncement : 30/07/2021 आदेश/ Order Per Vikas Awasthy, J.M: This Appeal By The Revenue Is Directed Against The Order Of Commissioner Of Income Tax Appeals-46, Mumbai [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘The Cit(A)’] Dated 04.06.2019 For The Assessment Year 2010-11. आअसं. 5792/मुं/2019 (िन.व.2010-11) 2. The Solitary Issue Raised In This Appeal By The Revenue Is Against Restricting Of Disallowance On Account Of Bogus Purchases To 8% By The Cit(A) As Against Disallowance Of 12.5% Made By The Assessing Officer (Ao).

For Appellant: Sh. Sanjay J. SethiFor Respondent: None
Section 133(6)

/2019 (िन.व.2010-11) 2. The solitary issue raised in this appeal by the Revenue is against restricting of disallowance on account of bogus purchases to 8% by the CIT(A) as against disallowance of 12.5% made by the Assessing Officer (AO). 3. The assessment ... assessee in the form of Inward Register, Stock Register, Lorry receipts, etc., to prove trail of goods. The AO estimated Gross Profit (GP) on bogus purchases at 12.5% and made addition of Rs. 15,34,739/-. Against the assessment order dated 30.12.2015, the assessee filed appeal before

Income Tax Officer 32 (1) (2), Mumbai vs. Shri Chiranjilal B Shah, Mumbai

Appeal of the Revenue is dismissed, being devoid of any merit

ITA 5791/MUM/2019[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Jul 2021AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwalआअसं. 5791/मुं/2019 (िन.व.2009-10) Ito-32(1)(2), Room No. 704, 7Th Floor, Kautilya Bhavan, Bandra Kurla Complex, Bandra(E), Mumbai-400051. ...... अपीलाथ+ /Appellant बनाम Vs. Shri Chiranjilal B Shah, 2, Patel Industrial Estate, S.V. Road, Dahisar (E), Mumbai-400068. Pan: Aafps3862D ..... ,ितवाद./Respondent अपीलाथ+ /ारा/ Appellant By : Sh. Sanjay J. Sethi ,ितवाद. /ारा/Respondent By : Sh. Sanjay Bhachawat सुनवाई क0 ितिथ/ Date Of Hearing : 09/06/2021 घोषणा क0 ितिथ/ Date Of Pronouncement : 30/07/2021 आदेश/ Order Per Vikas Awasthy, J.M: This Appeal By The Revenue Is Directed Against The Order Of Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-46, Mumbai [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘The Cit(A)’] Dated 14.06.2019 For The Assessment Year 2009-10. आअसं. 5791/मुं/2019 (िन.व.2009-10) 2. Sh. Sanjay J. Sethi Representing The Department Submitted That During The Period Relevant To The Assessment Year (Ay) Under Appeal, The Assessee Had Obtained Bogus Purchase Bills Amounting To Rs. 1,64,732/- From Three Dealers, Declared As Hawala Operators By The Sales Tax Department, Government Of Maharashtra. During Assessment Proceedings, The Assessee Neither Produces The Said Dealers Nor Any Confirmations From Them Were Filed. No Document Was Furnished By The Assessee To Prove Trail Of Goods. Thus, The Assessee Failed To Discharge His Onus In Proving Authenticity Of The Dealers & The Purchases Made From Them. The Assessing Officer (Ao) After Considering The Entire Facts Estimated Gross Profit (Gp) @ 20% On Bogus Purchases & Made Addition Of Rs. 32,946/-. In First Appellate Proceedings, The Cit(A) Restricted The Addition To 10% Of The Bogus Purchases. The Ld. Dr Prayed For Restoring The Findings Of Ao.

For Appellant: Sh. Sanjay J. SethiFor Respondent: Sh. Sanjay Bhachawat

Sanjay J. Sethi representing the Department submitted that during the period relevant to the Assessment Year (AY) under appeal, the assessee had obtained bogus purchase bills amounting to Rs. 1,64,732/- from three dealers, declared as hawala operators by the Sales Tax Department, Government of Maharashtra. During assessment proceedings ... dealers and the purchases made from them. The Assessing Officer (AO) after considering the entire facts estimated Gross Profit (GP) @ 20% on bogus purchases and made addition of Rs. 32,946/-. In First Appellate proceedings, the CIT(A) restricted the addition to 10% of the bogus purchases

Income Tax Officer 32 (1) (4), Mumbai vs. Shri Deepak Kantilal Shah, Mumbai

Appeal of the Revenue is dismissed, sans merit

ITA 5790/MUM/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Jul 2021AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwalआअसं. 5790/मुं/2019 (िन.व.2011-12) Ito-32(1)(4), Room No. 706, 7Th Floor, Kautilya Bhavan, Bandra Kurla Complex, Bandra(E), Mumbai-400051. ...... अपीलाथ+ /Appellant बनाम Vs. Shri Deepak Kantilal Shah, 402, Gpoal Puri, N.R. Daulat Nagar, S. V. Road, Borivali (E), Mumbai-400066. Pan: Asaps9234L ..... ,ितवाद./Respondent अपीलाथ+ /ारा/ Appellant By : Sh. Sanjay J. Sethi ,ितवाद. /ारा/Respondent By : Sh. Anil Thakrar सुनवाई क0 ितिथ/ Date Of Hearing : 09/06/2021 घोषणा क0 ितिथ/ Date Of Pronouncement : 30/07/2021 आदेश/ Order Per Vikas Awasthy, J.M: This Appeal By The Revenue Is Directed Against The Order Of Commissioner Of Income Tax Appeals-46 Mumbai [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘The Cit(A)’] Dated 07.05.2019 For The Assessment Year 2011-12. आअसं. 5790/मुं/2019 (िन.व.2011-12) 2. Sh. Sanjay J. Sethi Representing The Department Submitted That During The Period Relevant To Assessment Year (Ay) Under Appeal, The Assessee Had Obtained Bogus Purchase Bills Amounting To Rs. 51,31,646/- From Five Dealers, Declared As Hawala Operators By The Sales Tax Department, Government Of Maharashtra. During Assessment Proceedings, The Assessee Neither Produces The Said Dealers Nor Any Confirmations From Them Were Filed. No Document Was Furnished By The Assessee To Prove Trail Of Goods. Thus, The Assessee Failed To Discharge His Onus In Proving Authenticity Of The Dealers & The Purchases Made From Suspicious Dealers. The Assessing Officer (Ao) After Considering The Entire Facts Estimated Gross Profit (Gp) @ 12.5% On Bogus Purchases & Made Addition Of Rs. 6,41,456/-. In First Appellate Proceedings, The Cit(A) Restricted The Addition To 8% Of The Bogus Purchases. The Ld. Dr Prayed For Restoring The Findings Of Ao.

For Appellant: Sh. Sanjay J. SethiFor Respondent: Sh. Anil Thakrar

Sanjay J. Sethi representing the Department submitted that during the period relevant to Assessment Year (AY) under appeal, the assessee had obtained bogus purchase bills amounting to Rs. 51,31,646/- from five dealers, declared as hawala operators by the Sales Tax Department, Government of Maharashtra. During assessment proceedings ... dealers and the purchases made from suspicious dealers. The Assessing Officer (AO) after considering the entire facts estimated Gross Profit (GP) @ 12.5% on bogus purchases and made addition of Rs. 6,41,456/-. In first appellate proceedings, the CIT(A) restricted the addition to 8% of the bogus purchases

Vijay Kedia (HUF), Jaipur vs. ACIT, Jaipur

In the result, this appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1266/JPR/2019[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur30 Jul 2021AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm & Shri Vikram Singh Yadav, Am Vk;Dj Vihy La-@Ita No. 1266/Jp/2019 Fu/Kzkj.K O"Kz@Assessment Year :2008-09 M/S Vijay Kedia, Cuke A.C.I.T., 1307, Gopal Ji Ka Rasta, Johari Vs. Central Circle-1, Bazar, Jaipur. Jaipur. Lfkk;H Ys[Kk La-@Thvkbzvkj La-@Pan/Gir No.: Aabhv 6449 M Vihykfkhz@Appellant Izr;Fkhz@Respondent Fu/Kzkfjrh Dh Vksj Ls@ Assessee By : Shri S.R. Sharma (Ca)& Shri R.K. Bhatra (Ca) Jktlo Dh Vksj Ls@ Revenue By : Shri A.S. Nehra (Addl.Cit) Lquokbz Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Hearing : 19/07/2021 Mn?Kks"K.Kk Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Pronouncement : 30/07/2021 Vkns'K@ Order Per: Sandeep Gosain, J.M. This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of Ld. Cit(A)- 1, Jaipur Dated 02/09/2019 For The A.Y. 2008-09, Wherein Following Grounds Have Been Taken. “1. That On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case, The Ld. Cit(A) Is Wrong, Unjust & Has Erred In Law In Not Accepting Plea Of The Appellant That The Notice Issued By The Assessing Officer U/S 271(1)(C) Of The I.T. Act, 1961 Is Wrong & Bad In Law Inasmuch As It Did Not Specify In Which Limb Of Sec. 271(1)(C) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 The Penalty Proceedings Has Been Initiated I.E. Whether For Concealment Of Income Or Furnishing Of Inaccurate Particulars Of Income.

For Appellant: Shri S.R. Sharma (CA)&For Respondent: Shri A.S. Nehra (Addl.CIT)
Section 143(1)Section 147Section 271Section 271(1)(c)

that trading addition made by Ld. A.O. and confirmed by CIT (A) at Rs.34,49,579/- is not on account of any ungenuine or bogus purchases but was estimated addition out of purchases wherein Ld. A.O. by estimate disallowed 25% thereof on account of unverifiability of purchases while allowing ... disallowed 15% thereof on account of unverifiability of purchase while allowing 85% of said purchases as allowable. It is therefore cannot be held as bogus purchase but the purchases are held unverifiable as much as 85% of very same purchases has been allowed. It is the case where purchases

ITO, 28(3)(4), Mumbai vs. Vimal Babulal Shrimal, Mumbai

ITA 979/MUM/2019[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Jul 2021AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Vp & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Am आमकय अऩीर िं./ Ita No. 979/Mum/2019 (ननधाायण वर्ा / Assessment Year 2009-10) The Income Tax Officer Shri Vimal Babulal Shrimal, Ward 28(3)(4),Room No. 320, 3 Rd Plot No.16, Janta Market, Floor, 6Th Tower, Vashi Railway फनाभ/ Sector-23, Turbhe, Navi Station Complex, Vashi, Mumbai-400 705 Vs. Maharashtra-400703 (अऩीराथी / Appellant) (प्रत्मथी/ Respondent) स्थामी रेखा िं./Pan No. Anmps6054M अऩीराथी की ओय े/ Appellant By : Shri Bharat Andhle, Cit Dr प्रत्मथी की ओय े/ Respondent By : Shri Deepak Raje, Ar ुनवाई की तायीख / Date Of Hearing: 29.07.2021 घोर्णा की तायीख / Date Of Pronouncement: 29.07.2021 आदेश / O R D E R भहावीय स िंह, उऩाध्मक्ष के द्वाया / Per Mahavir Singh, Vp: This Appeal Of The Revenue Is Arising Out Of Order Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)]-26, Mumbai [In Short Cit(A)], In Appeal No. Cit(A)-26/It/338/2015-16 Vide Dated 14.12.2018. The Assessment Was Framed By The Income Tax Officer, Ward-28(3)(4), Mumbai (In Short Acit / Ao) For The A.Y. 2009-10 Vide Order Dated 05.01.2016 Under Section 143(3) Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter ‘The Act’). Shri Vimal Babulal Shrimal, Ay 09-10 2. The Only Issue In This Appeal Of Revenue Is Against The Order Of Cit(A) Restricting The Addition Made By Assessing Officer Of Bogus Purchases At 12.5% By Estimating The Profit Rate As Against 100% Addition Made By Assessing Officer. For This, Revenue Has Raised The Following 2 Grounds: -

For Appellant: Shri Bharat Andhle, CIT DRFor Respondent: Shri Deepak Raje, AR
Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 69C

only issue in this appeal of Revenue is against the order of CIT(A) restricting the addition made by Assessing Officer of bogus purchases at 12.5% by estimating the profit rate as against 100% addition made by Assessing Officer. For this, Revenue has raised the following 2 grounds: - “1. Whether ... circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in directing the A.O. to restrict the addition of bogus purchases to 12.5% as against 100% addition made by the Assessing officer on account bogus purchases without appreciating the fact that parties from whom those purchases were