IN THE INCOME-TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL“G” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI SANDEEP SINGH KARHAIL, JUDICIAL MEMBER &

SHRI PRABHASH SHANKAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No. 76/MUM/2025 (A.Y. 2009-10)

ITA No. 77/MUM/2025 (A.Y. 2010-11)

Shri Ganesh Jagaji Modi v/s. Assessing Officer, Central

115/28 J K Building, Dr. M.G.

बनाम Circle 4(2)

Mahimtura Marg, 3^rd Kautilya Bhavan, BKC, Khumbharwada, Mumbai – 400 Mumbai – 400 051, 004, Maharashtra Maharashtra स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./PAN/GIR No: AACPM0690C Appellant/अपीलाथी .. Respondent/

ITA No. 78/MUM/2025 (A.Y. 2009-10)

ITA No. 79/MUM/2025 (A.Y. 2010-11)

Deputy Commissioner of v/s. Shri Ganesh Jagaji Modi Income Tax, CC – 4(2) बनाम 115/28 J K Building, Dr. M.G. Room No. 420, Kautilya Mahimtura Marg, 3^rd Bhavan, BKC, Mumbai – 400 Khumbharwada, Mumbai –

051, Maharashtra 400004, Maharashtra स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./PAN/GIR No: AACPM0690C Appellant/अपीलाथी .. Respondent/

For Assessee : Dr. Prayag Jha, Advocate For Revenue : Shri Swapnil Choudhary, (Sr. DR)

Date of Hearing 06.10.2025 Date of Pronouncement 08.12.2025 आदेश / O R D E R PER PRABHASH SHANKAR [A.M.] :-

The above captioned appeals emanating from the appellate orders of even date in ITA No. 76 and 77/MUM/2025 have been preferred by the assessee and ITA No. 78 and 79/MUM/2025 are cross appeals filed by the Revenue pertaining to assessment orders passed u/s. 143(3) r.w.s 254 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 [hereinafter referred to as “Act”]as passed by the Learned Commissioner of Income-tax, Appeal, CIT(A)-52, Mumbai [hereinafter referred to as “CIT(A)”] for the Assessment Years 2009-10 and 2010-11.Since the issues involved are common, the facts being identical, barring figurative variations and also that appeals were heard together, they are being taken up for adjudication vide this composite order for the sake of brevity. We take up assessee’s appeal in ITA No.76/Mum/2025 first.

2. The grounds of the appeals are as under:-

ITA No. 76 /MUM/2025 (AYs 2009-10)

(1) On the facts and in law, the learned CIT(A) erred in sustaining addition of Rs. 27,97,902/- being 12.50% of the alleged bogus purchases, without appreciating the fact that the learned AO passed assessment order without properly following the directions of the Hon ITAT of examining the concerned parties and giving opportunity of cross examination to the assessee.

(2) On the facts and in law and without prejudice to ground no 1 above, the learned CIT(A) erred in restricting addition to 12.50%

of alleged bogus purchases and not to the extent of overall GP rate at the entity level, which is 4.79% in case of appellant.

3. At the outset, it may be stated here that instant appeals are second round of litigation as the appellate orders passed originally have been set aside and remitted back to the Assessing Officer for allowing cross-examination of the witnesses to the assessee and also to make enquiries and investigation in respect of alleged bogus purchases.

4. Briefly stated facts of the case are that the return of income was filed declaring total income of Rs. 17,47,290/-. The original assessment was completed u/s 143(3) of the Act at income of Rs. 19,06,230/-. During assessment proceedings, it was found by the AO that the assessee had taken accommodation entries from certain parties to inflate its purchases. On the basis of tangible material available, the case was reopened. Information was received from the Sales Tax Department, Govt. of Maharashtra that the assessee had obtained accommodation purchase entries from M/s. Ananaddeep Metal, M/s. Asian Steel, M/s. Siddhvinayak Steel, M/s. Suraj Tube Corporation, M/s. Valiant Steel Engg. Co. and M/s. Chanchal Tube Corporation aggregating to Rs 2,23,83,218/-.Notices u/s 133(6) of the Act calling for information to verify the genuineness of the purchases from the said six parties were issued which were returned back as ‘undelivered’ in the case of three parties and reply was not received in the case of balance three parties. The AO asked the assessee to produce th