SAWAILAL BHATTI,MUMBAI vs. ITO- 20(3)(2), MUMBAI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 3189/MUM/2022Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 February 2023AY 2009-105 pages
AI SummaryPartly Allowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that when sales are accepted as genuine, the entire purchases cannot be treated as non-genuine. Only the profit element embedded in such purchases should be taxed.

What were the facts?

The assessee, engaged in steel furniture business, faced reassessment as the Assessing Officer suspected accommodation entries for purchases. The AO treated a portion of purchases as non-genuine for AY 2009-10 and 2011-12, estimating profit at 12.5%.

What were the issues?

Whether the entire purchases can be treated as non-genuine when sales are accepted, and if not, what is the reasonable estimation of profit on such purchases.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 147,Section 143(1)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Cases cited in this judgment(3)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, MUMBAI BENCH “SMC”, MUMBAI

Before: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA, HONBLE & SHRI S. RIFAUR RAHMAN, HONBLE

For Appellant: Shri Dhaval Shah
For Respondent: Ms. Mini Vinod
Hearing: 06.02.2023Pronounced: 10.02.2023

O R D E R PER S. RIFAUR RAHMAN (AM) 1. These appeals are filed by the assessee against different orders of the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [hereinafter in short “Ld.CIT(A)”] dated 18.10.2022

2.

Briefly stated the facts are that, assessee an individual engaged in the business of making of steel furniture filed return of income on 07.07.2009 and 10.08.2011 declaring income of ₹.7,75,359/- and ₹.2,99,360/- for the A.Y. 2009-10 and A.Y.2011-12 respectively, and the returns were processed u/s. 143(1) of Income-tax Act, 1961 (in short “Act”). Subsequently, Assessing Officer received information from the DGIT(Inv.,), Mumbai about the accommodation entries provided by various dealers and assessee was also one of the beneficiary from those dealers. The assessments were reopened u/s. 147 of the Act based on the information received from DGIT (Inv.,), Mumbai, that the assessee has availed accommodation entries from various dealers who are said to be providing accommodation entries without there being transportation of any goods. In the reassessment proceedings, the assessee was required to prove the genuineness of the purchases made from various dealers as referred in Assessment Order. In response assessee submitted that the purchases made are genuine.

3 & 3193/MUM/2022 Sawailal Surtaram Bhatti 3. Not convinced with the submissions of the assessee the Assessing Officer treated the purchases as non-genuine and he was of the opinion that assessee had obtained only accommodation entries without there being any transportation of materials and the assessee might have made purchases in the gray market. It is the finding of the Assessing Officer that assessee failed to produce the parties and as such the parties remained unverifiable. Therefore, Assessing Officer treated ₹.24,56,579/- and ₹.2,13,304/- as non-genuine, being 12.5% of the total non-genuine purchases of ₹.1,96,52,633/- and ₹.17,06,432/- for the A.Y. 2009-10 and A.Y.2011-12 respectively. On appeal the Ld.CIT(A) sustained the action of the Assessing Officer in estimating the Gross Profit at 12.5%. Against these orders of the Ld.CIT(A) assessee is in appeal.

4.

Ld. Counsel for the assessee reiterated the submissions made before the Ld.CIT(A). Ld. Counsel for the assessee further submitted that the assessee is in the business of Iron and steel and already declared the profit of 7.79% in A.Y. 2009-10 and 6.17% in A.Y. 2011-12. The applicable VAT during that period was only 4%. He prayed that the addition may be sustained at the applicable VAT rate. Further, he submitted that assessee is not pressing the Ground Nos. 1 to 4 of grounds of appeal.

6. Considered the rival submissions and material placed on record and perused the orders of the authorities below. It is not in dispute that sales have been accepted as genuine from out of these purchases. When the sales have been accepted as genuine the entire purchases cannot be treated as non-genuine. The Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in the case of Bholanath Polyfab Pvt. Ltd [355 ITR 290] held that when the assessee made purchases and sold the finished goods as a natural corollary not the entire amount covered under such purchases would be subject to tax but only the profit element embedded therein. Similar view has been taken by the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in the case of CIT v. Simit P. Seth [38 taxman.com 385]. Simply because the parties were not produced the entire purchases cannot be added as held by the Bombay High Court in the case of CIT v. Nikunj Eximp [216 Taxman.com 171]. We agree with the view of the lower authorities that there should be an estimation of profit element from these purchases and should be estimated reasonably as the assessee could not conclusively prove that the purchases made are from the parties as claimed, especially in the absence of any confirmations from them. Taking the totality of facts and circumstances, keeping in 5 & 3193/MUM/2022 Sawailal Surtaram Bhatti view the nature of business of the assessee i.e. trader in Iron and Steel Metals, it would be justified if the profit element embedded in those purchases are estimated at 5%. Accordingly, we direct the Assessing Officer to estimate the profit element from the non-genuine purchases at 5% for both the Assessment Years i.e., A.Y. 2009-10 and A.Y. 2011-12 and restrict the disallowance of purchases to 5% and compute the income accordingly.

7.

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed.

Order pronounced in the open court on 10th February, 2023.

More judgments on Section 147

All 49,210 judgments and leading authorities on Section 147 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →