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/101/2024 ORDER DATED: 24/02/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/TAX APPEAL NO. 101 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.1524/AHD/2017 for the assessment year
2008-2009.
"(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
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/TAXAP/101/2024 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
therein is dismissed by this Court vide order dated 27/02/2024
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/TAXAP/101/2024 ORDER DATED: 24/02/2025
undefined
wherein also the issue of addition of 100% of purchase was
raised which 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
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/TAXAP/101/2024 ORDER DATED: 24/02/2025
undefined
against the direction of the the Hon'ble High Court in
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
