DINESH KUMAR JAIN,MUMBAI vs. ITO-22(1)(2), MUMBAI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 373/JODH/2019Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur27 October 2023AY 2010-113 pages
AI SummaryDismissed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal found the CIT(A)'s order to be cogent and based on various judicial precedents. Therefore, they declined to interfere with the CIT(A)'s decision.

What were the facts?

The assessee declared a total income of Rs. 4,85,600, but the Assessing Officer (AO) determined it at Rs. 8,95,297, disallowing 12.5% of alleged bogus purchases. The CIT(A) reduced this disallowance to 4.5% of the purchases.

What were the issues?

The primary issue was the quantum of disallowance on alleged bogus purchases. The Tribunal had to decide whether to uphold the AO's disallowance or the CIT(A)'s reduced disallowance.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 143(3)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Cases cited in this judgment(6)Show list

Detected automatically from the text. Citations are also linked where they appear in the judgment. The count shows how many other judgments on BharatTax rely on the same authority.

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, JODHPUR BENCH ‘DB’: JODHPUR

For Respondent: Mr. Rajeev Mohan, JCIT-DR
Hearing: 22/09/2023Pronounced: 27/10/2023

ORDER

PER DR. B.R.R. KUMAR, AM:

1.

This appeal is preferred by the Assessee against order dated 27/08/2019 passed by the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-2, Jodhpur {CIT(A)} for Assessment Year 2010-11.

2.

On perusal of the order of the Ld. CIT(A) consisting of 19 pages dealing with the issue of bogus purchases in this case, the assessee has filed return of income declaring total income of Rs.4,85,600/- and the AO completed the assessment u/s 143 (3) determining the total income at Rs.8,95,297/-. The Assessing Officer determined profit @ 12.5% on the purchases made of Rs.32,77,579/-. After going through the details of purchase of gray cloth and the order of the various Benches of the Tribunal, the Ld. CIT(A) determined the disallowance @ 4.5% of the alleged purchase instead of 12.5% determined by the Assessing Officer. We find that the order of the Ld. CIT(A) is cogent based on the facts and placing reliance on the various judgments namely Hon’ble ITAT Ahmedabad Bench in the case of Vijay Protein Ltd. vs. ACIT (58 ITR 428) and N.K. Proteins Ltd. vs. DCIT [4 SOT 0479] (Ahd)], Hon’ble Gujrat High Court in the case of CIT vs. Presdient Industries (258 ITR 654) and Hon’ble Madhya Pradesh High Court in the case of CIT vs. Balchand Ajit Kumar (263 ITR 610), DCIT vs. Shri Jitendra S. Motani in to 3028 Bench “J” dated 04.08.2009 (AYs 2000-01 to 2005-06) and ITA No.6178/M/2007 dated 30.11.2011 Bench “J” (AY. 2004-05), Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs. La Medica (250 ITR 575), CIT vs. Hilux Automotive (P) Ltd. (23 DTR 358/183 Taxman 260), Hon’ble Punjab and Haryana High Court in the case of Mittal Belting and Machinery Stores vs. CIT (253 ITR 341). We decline in interfere with the order of the Ld. CIT(A).

4.

In the result, the appeal of the Assessee is dismissed.

Order pronounced in the open Court on 27th October, 2023.

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →