SHRI KHANDELWAL DIAMONDS PRIVATE LIMITED,JAIPUR vs. DCIT, CIRCLE 1, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

section 145(3) is illegal and unjustified and deserves to be quashed. Ground No. 1 : That under the facts and circumstances of the case, the Id. CIT (A) has erred seriously on facts in sustaining the action of the ld. AO in considering purchases of a sum of Rs. 3,21,93,468 made from 11 parties as bogus

SHRI KHANDELWAL DIAMONDS PRIVATE LIMITED,JAIPUR vs. ACIT, CIRCLE 1, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Him On The Reason Of Issuing Notice U/S 148 On Borrowed Satisfaction Of Another Wing Of The Department.

14 Shri Khandelwal Diamonds Pvt. Ltd. vs. ACIT business. Its purchases from 11 parties belonging to Bhanwar Lal Jain group was doubted and the ld. AO made addition of the whole amount of purchases u/s 69C. On appeal the ld. CIT (A) deleted addition u/s 69C and restricted the addition to 3% of the purchases made from such 11 parties

ALKA KHANDAKA,JAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 1(2), JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

14,650 (taxed u/s 115BBE) Demand & Penalty: Notices issued u/s 234A/B/C/D and 271AAC. Finding by the Ld. CIT(A): It is respectfully submitted that the order of the Ld. CIT(A) is well-reasoned and does not call for any interference. The key findings are summarized as under: Bogus Purchases Established The assessee relied upon alleged purchases from M/s Parijat

INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-1(1), JAIPUR vs. KIRAN INFRA ISPAT LIMITED, JAIPUR

purchase the goods in furtherance of the business\nand cannot be issued by any other entity like a direct consumer of the\ngoods (APB 104-111)\n5.\nCopy of day to day stock register maintained by the assessee company\nwherein the outward entry of the goods sold to M/s Mamta Trading Co.\nis duly highlighted (APB 211-281)\n6.\nCopy

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-4, JAIPUR, JAIPUR vs. SUNDER DAS SONKIYA, JAIPUR

In the result, both appeals of the revenue are dismissed

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

bogus purchase bills from the above entry providers. In the list supplied by the DCIT, CC-4, Surat name of the assessee Shri Sunder Das Sonkia (Prop. M/s S. Naveen Jewellers) also find place who had obtained purchase bills amounting to Rs. 1,73,34,424/- from Mis Aadi Impex (Prop. Anoop Jain), M/s Arihant 5 DCIT vs. Sunder

JAJOO RASHMI REFRACTORIES LIMITED,JAIPUR, RAJASTHAN vs. DCIT, CIRCLE 4-JAIPUR,, JAIPUR, RAJASTHAN

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for\nstatistical purposes

14 CIT(A) NATIONAL FACELESS APPEAL CENTRE (NFAC)\nhas erred in law and on facts in dismissing the appeal exparte ignoring the fact\nthat the assessee had duly applied for the adjournment hence the order of\ndismissal of appeal for non appearance is against the principal of natural\n6. The exparte dismissal order order passed by the CIT(A)-NATIONAL

RAVI KUMAR RAWAT,JAIPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE 2, JAIPUR

Appeals are allowed and impugned orders are set aside

Bench: SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member), SHRI NARINDER KUMAR (Judicial Member)

bogus 6,01,459/- 6,01,459/- purchase Total income 9,53,339/- Rounded off 9,53,340/- In that assessment order ld. AO initiated penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)© vide notice dated 25-01-2016. SHRI RAVI KUMAR RAWAT VS DCIT, CIRCLE-2, JAIPUR 2.2 Assessee challenged that order of assessment before the ld. CIT(A) which was partly

RAVI KUMAR RAWAT,JAIPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE 2, JAIPUR

Appeals are allowed and impugned orders are set aside

Bench: the Ld. CIT(A) which was partly considered by Ld. CIT(A) vide order dated 14-12-2018 in Appeal No. 474/2015-16. Vide that order Ld. CIT(A) restricted the addition from Rs.6,01,459/- to Rs.2,67,647/- by applying G.P. Rate @ 12%. Hence, the addition of Rs.2,67,647/- was sustained by the Ld. CIT(A) and therefore, Ld. AO passed penalty order dated 01-05-2020 wherein the AO imposed the penalty on the assessee for an amount of Rs.1,03,150/- u/s Section 271(1)(c) of the Act by observing as under:-

bogus 6,01,459/- 6,01,459/- purchase Total income 9,53,339/- Rounded off 9,53,340/- In that assessment order ld. AO initiated penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)© vide notice dated 25-01-2016. SHRI RAVI KUMAR RAWAT VS DCIT, CIRCLE-2, JAIPUR 2.2 Assessee challenged that order of assessment before the ld. CIT(A) which was partly

KANDOI METAL POWDERS MANUFACTRUING COMPANY,JAIPUR vs. DCIT, CC-3, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

bogus purchase was involved and in that case profit estimated @ 25 %. Thus, he supported the addition made by the AO @ 25 % of purchase. The ld. DR also draw our attention to the findings recorded by the AO that how the exact credit and debit transactions recorded in the parties from where these purchases are accounted. He has also drawn

DURGA PRASAD SHARMA,JAIPUR vs. I.T.O. WARD 1(1), JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

bogus purchase form M/s Sidhi Vinayak Metal & Salt Company. Further perusal of GSTR-1 data of assessee has revealed that M/s Sidhi Vinayak Metal & Salt Company Pvt. Ltd has not filed its ITR for A.Y. 2018-19, accordingly the purchase made by the assessee amounting Rs.89,03,956/- was disallowed and was added in the income of assessee as unexplained

SHIVAM READYMIX PRIVATE LIMITED,NEEMUCH vs. THE PCIT(CENTRAL), JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

bogus purchases as compared to G.P. on normal purchases In the present case also, since the ld. AO has examined the profit worked out on unaccounted purchases and has accepted such working prepared by assessee by observing that : “It is also submitted that assessee company has now offered the additional undisclosed income based on GP rate of its business activity

GOVINDAM EXPORT,JAIPUR, RAJASTHAN vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-1, JPR, JAIPUR, RAJASTHAN

In the results all the appeals filed by the assessee ITA Nos

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

bogus. The only presumption in such circumstances available is that the assessee might have purchased the goods from the others. 3. Rejection of books of Decided Confirmed the rejection of books of accounts against the accounts, which rejected by assessee applying the provisions of section 145(3) of Income Tax Act, 1961 solely on the ground of alleged not verifiable/bogus

SHRI PREM INDUSTRIES,BHARATPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-1, BHARATPUR

The appeal is disposed of, and the matter is remanded to

Bench: SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member), SHRI NARINDER KUMAR (Judicial Member)

bogus parties and the assessee when confronted by the GST authorities, paid the corresponding GST. Therefore the facts of the present case are entirely different than the case relied upon by the assessee. Moreover, the assessee did not provide either confirmed copy of accounts or ITR of the other parties from whom goods were purported to have been purchased. Moreover

SHRI SUNDER DAS SONKIA,JAIPUR vs. ITO, WARD 1(2), JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed partly and the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm & Shri Vikram Singh Yadav, Am Vk;Dj Vihy La-@Ita No. 1383/Jp/2019 Assessment Year: 2010-11 Shri Sunder Das Sonkia, Cuke I.T.O., Vs. Sonkia Bhawan, Sms, Highway, Ward-1(2), Jaipur. Jaipur. Pan No.: Akhps 7413 G Vihykfkhz@Appellant Izr;Fkhz@Respondent Vk;Dj Vihy La-@Ita No. 09/Jp/2020 Assessment Year: 2010-11 I.T.O., Cuke Shri Sunder Das Sonkhiya, Vs. Ward-1(2), Prop.- M/S Naveen Jewellers, Jaipur. Sonkhiya Bhawan, Chaura Rasta, Jaipur. Pan No.: Akhps 7413 G Vihykfkhz@Appellant Izr;Fkhz@Respondent Fu/Kzkfjrh Dh Vksj Ls@ Assessee By : Shri S.R. Sharma (Ca) & Shri Rajnikant Bhatra (Ca) Jktlo Dh Vksj Ls@ Revenue By : Smt. Rooni Paul (Addl.Cit) Lquokbz Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Hearing : 02/12/2020 Mn?Kks"K.Kk Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Pronouncement : 18/01/2021 Vkns'K@ Order Per: Sandeep Gosain, J.M. These Are The Appeal Filed By The Assessee & The Cross Appeal Filed By The Revenue Arise Against The Order Of The Ld. Cit(A)-4, Jaipur Dated 08/11/2019 For The A.Y. 2010-11. The Grounds Taken By The Assessee & The Revenue Are As Under:

bogus sources lacking genuineness, creditworthiness, genuine identity, which fall within the purview of section 68. [Para 14]. It is true that the reasons recorded or the material available on record must have nexus to the subjective opinion formed by the Assessing Officer regarding the escapement of the income but then, while recording the reasons for belief formed, the Assessing Officer

K L TAMBI AND CO,JAIPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2,, JAIPUR

27. As a result, the appeal is partly allowed, and addition of 20% of bogus or purchases from unverifiable persons or entities is upheld as regards AY 2005-06

Bench: This Appellate Tribunal

section 145(2) of the Act. 16. While relying on decision in N.K. Industries Ltd.’s case (supra), by Hon’ble Gujarat High Court, learned DR for the Revenue has contended that therein the findings of the Tribunal that the amount of Rs.2,92,93,288/-represented alleged purchases from bogus suppliers, 12 M/s K L Tambi & Co. vs DCIT

GOVINDAM EXPORT,JAIPUR, RAJASTHAN vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-1, JAIPUR, RAJASTHAN

bogus purchases only.\n21. We have heard the rival contentions and perused the material\navailable on record. The bench noted that in this case the Hon'ble\njurisdictional while allowing the appeal of the revenue set aside the\nassessment to be done a fresh. While doing so the Hon'ble High Court has\nfollowed the finding so given

GOVINDAM EXPORT,JAIPUR, RAJASTHAN vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-1, JAIPUR, RAJASTHAN

bogus (after\nallowing expenses @10% of turnover)\nTotal Addition by AO\nAY 99-00\nAY 2000-01\nAY 2003-04\n5,98,789/- 67,30,070/- 1,45,58,323/-\n5,98,789/- 67,30,070/- 1,45,58,323/-\n59,878/- 6,73,007/- 14

ABHAY CHORDIA,JAIPUR vs. DCIT CIRCLE 1, JAIPUR

Appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

section 145(3), consequential rejection of books of accounts of the assessee, treatment of purchases of Rs. 31,99,996/- made by the assessee from M/s. Sun Diam as not verifiable and consequential addition of Rs. 7,99,999/-, being 25% of above mentioned alleged unverifiable purchases of Rs. 31,99,996/-, and levy of tax thereon. In support