Perusal Of The Impugned Judgment Of The Tribunal v. Cit Reported In (2009) 316 Itr 274 (Guj

C/TAXAP/495/2018 ORDER IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD R/TAX APPEAL NO. 495 of 2018 With R/TAX APPEAL NO. 496 of 2018With R/TAX APPEAL NO. 497 of 2018With R/TAX APPEAL NO. 498 of 2018With R/TAX APPEAL NO. 499 of 2018With R/TAX APPEAL NO. 500 of 2018 ========================================================== COMMISSIOER OF INCOME TAX, GANDHINAGAR VersusJAYANTILAL P THAKKAR ========================================================== Appearance:MRS MAUNA M BHATT(174) for the PETITIONER(s) No. 1 for the RESPONDENT(s) No. 1 ========================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE AKIL KURESHIandHONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE B.N. KARIA Date : 09/05/2018 COMMON ORAL ORDER (PER : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE AKIL KURESHI) 1.These Tax Appeals arise out of common background, we may record facts from Tax Appeal No.495 of 2018. 2.Revenue is in appeal against the judgment of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal dated 22.12.2017 raising following questions for our consideration: “Whether the Appellate Tribunal has erred in law and on facts of the case in restricting the addition to 25% of the value of alleged purchases after categorically finding it to be bogus ? 3.Perusal of the impugned judgment of the Tribunal would show that even while upholding that the assessee had shown bogus purchases, the Tribunal did not permit addition of the entire amount, restricted it to 25% thereof on the principle that not the total purchases but the profit element embedded therein could be subject to tax. The Tribunal in the process, relied on the judgment in case of Sanjay Oil Cake Industries. Vs. CIT reported in (2009) 316 ITR 274 (Guj). 4.No question of law arises. Tax Appeals are dismissed. (AKIL KURESHI, J) ANKIT SHAH (B.N. KARIA, J)