Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee's appeal relates to assessment year 2011-12. The lower authorities treated purchases of Rs. 34,18,150/- as bogus and unexplained expenditure. These purchases were sourced from M/s Kamna Overseas, identified as an accommodation entry provider.
Held
The Tribunal noted that while the purchases were treated as bogus, the corresponding sales were not doubted. However, the assessee failed to provide evidence to prove the genuineness of the purchases. Consequently, the Tribunal disallowed the impugned purchases at a lump sum rate of 10% without treating it as a precedent.
Key Issues
Whether the impugned purchases treated as bogus and unexplained expenditure deserve to be disallowed, and if so, to what extent.
Sections Cited
147, 143(3), 69C
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH ‘SMC’, NEW DELHI
Before: Sh. Satbeer Singh Godara
Asstt. Year : 2011-12 Vinod Kumar Prop. of Vinod Vs Income Tax Officer, Enterprises, R/o H. No. 920, Ward-4, Sector-13, Karnal, Karnal, Haryana-132001 Haryana-132001 (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) PAN No. ADEPK5811G Assessee by: Sh. Rajeev Sachdeva, CA Revenue by : Sh. Manoj Kumar, Sr. DR Date of Hearing: 03.07.2025 Date of Pronouncement: 03.07.2025 ORDER This assessee’s appeal for Assessment Year 2011-12, arises against the CIT(A)/NFAC, Delhi’s DIN & order No. ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2024-25/1072846641(1) dated 03.02.2025, in proceedings u/s 147 r.w.s. 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short “the Act”).
Heard both the parties at length. Case file perused.
It transpires during the course of hearing that both the learned lower authorities have treated the assessee’s purchases of Rs.34,18,150/- as bogus once since sourced from M/s Kamna Overseas which was found to be an accommodation entry provider as per the DDIT(Karnal)’s report after due investigation. It is in this factual backdrop that both the learned lower authorities have treated the aforesaid impugned
I have given my thoughtful consideration to the assessee’s and the Revenue vehement rival submissions reiterating their respective stands. Coming to the impugned alleged bogus purchase disallowance, the department could hardly dispute that it’s corresponding sales have nowhere been doubted as duly declared in the P&L account. This is indeed coupled with the fats that the assessee has not been able to plead and prove the impugned purchases as genuine by filing the corresponding relevant supportive evidence. It is thus deemed appropriate in these peculiar facts that the assessee’s impugned bogus purchases of Rs.34,18,150/- deserve to be disallowed at a lump sum rate of 10% with a rider that the same shall not be treated as a precedent. Necessary computation shall follow as per law.
No other ground or argument has been raised.