Gujarat High Court
Ravjibhai Becharbhai Dhameliya vs Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax ... on 24 February, 2025
Author: Bhargav D. Karia
Bench: Bhargav D. Karia
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/TAXAP/103/2024 ORDER DATED: 24/02/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/TAX APPEAL NO. 103 of 2024
==========================================================
RAVJIBHAI BECHARBHAI DHAMELIYA
Versus
ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE -1(1)(1), SURAT
==========================================================
Appearance:
MS VAIBHAVI K PARIKH(3238) for the Appellant(s) No. 1
KARAN G SANGHANI(7945) for the Opponent(s) No. 1
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BHARGAV D. KARIA
and
HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE D.N.RAY
Date : 24/02/2025
ORAL ORDER
(PER : HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BHARGAV D. KARIA)
1. This appeal is filed by the appellant assessee under Section 260(A) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short 'the Act'), proposing the following substantial questions of law arising out of the judgment and order dated 06/01/2022 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (for short 'the Tribunal') in ITA No.1523/AHD/2017 for the assessment year 2007-2008.
"(i) Whether, in the facts and circumstances of the case, the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal was right in upholding the validity of reopening of assessment under section 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961?
(ii) Whether, in the facts and circumstances of the Page 1 of 4 Uploaded by PATEL ILA KANTIBHAI(HC00194) on Mon Mar 10 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Mar 14 22:36:57 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/TAXAP/103/2024 ORDER DATED: 24/02/2025 undefined case, the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal was right in partly confirming the addition in respect of alleged bogus purchases based on material and statements which were admittedly not provided to the appellant for rebuttal and cross examination?
(iii) Whether, in the facts and circumstances of the case, the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal was right in holding the impugned purchases as bogus purchases?
(iv) Whether, in the facts and circumstances of the case, the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal was right in law in enhancing the addition on alleged bogus purchases to 6% of the amount of disputed purchases as against 5% confirmed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) without giving any cogent reasons?
(v) Whether, in the facts and circumstances of the case, the order passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal was perverse in as much as the same has been passed without appreciating the facts of the case, documentary evidences forming part of record and the settled legal principles in the correct perspective?
2. At the outset, learned Senior Standing Counsel Mr.Karan Sanghani appearing for the respondent revenue submitted that the Tax Appeal No.107/2024 arising from the impugned order of the Tribunal filed by the appellant revenue is dismissed by this Court vide order dated 27/02/2024 Page 2 of 4 Uploaded by PATEL ILA KANTIBHAI(HC00194) on Mon Mar 10 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Mar 14 22:36:57 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/TAXAP/103/2024 ORDER DATED: 24/02/2025 undefined wherein also the issue of addition of 100% of purchases was restricted by the Tribunal to 6% of the purchases made by the assesses. It was therefore submitted that both these appeals filed by the assesses from the same order which raised the same issue may also be dismissed as this Court has referred to and relied upon the decision in case of Principal Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Pankaj K. Chaudhary in Tax Appeal No.617 of 2022 decided on 07/03/2023.
3. We have perused the judgment and order dated 27/02/2024 in Tax Appeal No.107 of 2024 in case of the appellant therein rendered by this Court.
4. In the Tax Appeal No.107 of 2024, following substantial questions of law were proposed by the appellant revenue.
"(i) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the learned Tribunal was justified in estimating the addition in respect of bogus purchases at the rate of 6% of such purchases as against disallowance made by the AO at the rate of 100% of such purchases amounting to Rs.25,24,67,233/- ignoring that these purchases are sham transactions fabricated through bogus paper concerns of Shri Rajendra Jain Group, Shri Sanjay Chaudhary Group and Dhramichand Jain Group companies which were engaged in providing accommodation entries?
(ii) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the learned Tribunal was justified in estimating the addition in respect of bogus purchases at the rate of 6% of such purchases by relying on the decision of the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in the case of Mayank Diamonds Pvt. Ltd. (2014)(11) TMI 812 as against the direction of the the Hon'ble High Court in Page 3 of 4 Uploaded by PATEL ILA KANTIBHAI(HC00194) on Mon Mar 10 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Mar 14 22:36:57 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/TAXAP/103/2024 ORDER DATED: 24/02/2025 undefined that case to make addition at the rate of 5% of the total turnover?"
5. After considering the decision in case of Principal Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Pankaj K. Chaudhary in Tax Appeal No.617 of 2022, the Tax Appeals filed by the revenue were dismissed as the question of addition of purchases made by the Assessing Officer was restricted by the Tribunal to 6% was already confirmed by this Court.
6. Therefore, proposed questions in this Tax Appeal are also stand answered as the assessee being aggrieved by the very same order has preferred this appeal raising the questions of law.
7. This appeal is accordingly dismissed in view of the order passed in Tax Appeal No.107 of 2024.
(BHARGAV D. KARIA, J) (D.N.RAY,J) ILA Page 4 of 4 Uploaded by PATEL ILA KANTIBHAI(HC00194) on Mon Mar 10 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Mar 14 22:36:57 IST 2025