207, Sant Tukaram Road, Opp.Sita Hotel, Iron Market, Mumbai400009 And M/s Kagalwala & Associates स्थामी रेखा सं ./ जीआइआय सं ./ PAN/GIR No. : AAAFM 6318 D (अऩीराथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्मथी / Respondent) ननधाारयती की ओर से /Assessee by : Dr. K.Shivram&Ms.Neelam Jadhav याजस्व की ओर से /Revenue by :Shri Randhir Gupta सुनवाई की तायीख / Date of Hearing : 26/07/2016 घोषणा की तायीख/Date of Pronouncement 24/08/2016 आदे श / O R D E R PER R.C.SHARMA (A.M): These are the appeals filed by the assessee against the order of CIT(A), Mumbai, for the assessment years 20072008 to 20112012, in the matter of order passed u/s.143(3) r.w.s.147 of the I.T.Act. 2. Common grounds have been taken by the assessee in all the years under consideration, which relates to validity of reopening as well as merit of the addition made on account of bogus purchase. 3. Rival contentions have been heard and record perused. As the facts and circumstances in all the years under consideration are same, as a lead cease, we shall take the appeal for the assessment year 200708. Facts in brief are that The assessee is a partnership firm engaged in the business of ship chandlers, general merchants and suppliers of marine 2 ITA Nos.75847588/14 stores since 1978. The firm was managed by two families namely Gilitwalas and Tehsildars. The assessee has been supplying stores products varying in the range of 1500 products useC\in the Marine Industry and major customers are PSUs namely Shipping Corporation of India Ltd. (SCI), ONGC, Mazgaon Docks Ltd and Coast Guards Region (West), which constitutes almost 98% of total sales revenue. The assessee had filed the return of income on 07/11/2007 declaring total income at Rs. 29,58,970/. Assessment u/s 143(3) was completed on 22/12/2008 (as mentioned in the computation of total income in the assessment order) assessing total income of Rs. 30,44,247/. The information was received from the office of the DDIT (Inv) UnltIl (1) that the assessee had shown bogus/suspicious purchases from various vendors who are listed in the web site of sales tax department and which are presumed as hawala dealers by the sales tax Department. accordingly an open enquiry was conducted by the investigation wing and during the course of the said enquiry certain incriminating documents/material were impounded. The Dy. Comm. of Income Tax 13(1), Mumbai, reopened the assessment on the ground of information received from the office of the DDIT (Inv) Unit II1, that the assessee had shown bogus/suspicious purchases from various vendors, who were listed in the web site of sales tax department as hawala dealers by the Sales Tax Department. Copy of Reasons recorded for Reopening of Assessment was also given to the assessee. During the year assessee had made purchases from bogus suppliers amounting to Rs.4,62,96,530/ 3 ITA Nos.75847588/14 The Assessing Officer made an addition of Rs. 46,29,653/ on the ground that the assessee would have made an additional margin @ 10% on the said bogus purchases. 4. Against the above order, the assessee reached to the CIT(A), who upheld the validity of reopening. However, after discussing the issue in great detail and applying various proposition of law to the facts of the instant case, upheld the addition of 6% of alleged bogus purchases. Against the above order of CIT(A), revenue is not in appeal before us. However, assessee has approached us for balance addition of Rs.6% as upheld by the CIT(A). 5. We have considered rival contentions and found from record that after examining in great detail, the CIT(A) has upheld the addition of 6% on the said disputed purchases. 6. It was contended by ld. AR that all the documents were submitted in support of the disputed purchases before the AO which include partywise sales summary, product wise sales summary, partywise TIN details and ledger/accounts confirmation/bank statements. 7. Our attention was also invited to the statement of Mr. Gilitwala (Partner) under oath that to his knowledge all purchases were genuine and to the fact that all p