AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Per Bench:
These assessee’s seven appeals ITA Nos. 2132 to 2138/Del/2019 for Assessment Years 2009-10 to 2015-16 arise against the CIT(A)-29, New Delhi’s common order dated 22.10.2018 in case Nos. 167, 170, 171, 175, 177, 182 & 211/2017-18/CIT(A)-29, in pro ceedings u/s 153A/143(3 ) and 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short “the Act”), respectively.
Heard both the parties at length. Case files perused.
It emerges during the co urse of hearing with the able assistance coming from both the parties that the assessee inter alia raises it’s identical sole substantive ground challenging both the lear ned lower authorities’ respective assessment and lower appellate findings rejecting it’s books thereby assessing the corresponding turnover @2.25% GP all along.
This is what leaves the assessee aggrieved who has filed all these seven appeals ITA Nos. 2132 to 2138/Del/2019 before the tribunal.
We have given our thoughtful consideration to the assessee’s and the Revenue’s vehement respective stands against and in support of the impugned rejection of books followed by GP estimation in it’s case @ 2.25%. The Revenue’s case more particular ly is that the learned departmental authorities had carried out the search in issue on 20.03.2015 in M/s Shakti Bhog group of cases leading to initiation of section 153A proceedings herein which finally culminated in the impugned assessment rejecting it’s sales/purchase turnover and further estimated the same @ 2 .25%. We thus tr eat A.Y. 2009-10 as the “lead” assessment year since involving identical set of facts and noticed that both the learned lower authorities have not even indicated in their re spective assessment and lower appellate discussion as to whether the corresponding thirty entities had acted as the assessee’s supplier(s) or purchaser(s); as the case may be. Nor they have verified the corresponding turno ver(s) in each and every such an instance. The facts also remains that the assessee appears to have not successfully prove d it’s turnover to the very effect to the entire satisfaction of the learned lower authoritie s. There is further no denial to the fact that the learned lower author ities have reduce d the alleged “bogus” transactions from the admitted turnover and estimated GP qua the latter figures only than having proceeded qua the sales/purchases in dispute. They have rather ended up in re -estimating assessee’s GP only as genuine transactions. We are of the co nsidered view in this factual backdrop and in the larger interest of justice that a lump sum GP estimation @1.5% of the assessee’s alleged fictitious sales and debit entries than it’s entire turnover in all these assessment years, shall be just and proper in the assessee’s with a rider that the same shall not be treated as a precedent. Necessary computation shall follow as per law.
No other ground or argument has been pressed.
These assessee’s seven appeals ITA Nos. 2132 to 2138/Del/2019 are par tly allowed. A copy of this common order be placed in the respective case files.