M/S SUPREME CAD ENGINEERS,NEW DELHI vs. ITO, NEW DELHI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 2473/DEL/2016Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 December 2022AY 2006-073 pages
AI SummaryPartly Allowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A)'s analogy of restricting the addition to 20% was not applicable to a seller. Therefore, the Tribunal reduced the addition to 10% of the bogus purchases.

What were the facts?

The assessee appealed against an addition made by the AO on account of bogus purchases. The CIT(A) upheld a part of the addition (20% of the bogus purchases) and deleted the rest.

What were the issues?

Whether the CIT(A) was justified in upholding a part of the addition on account of bogus purchases when the assessee's sales were accepted. The quantum of addition on account of bogus purchases.

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCHES “SMC” : DELHI

Before: SHRI C.M. GARG

Hearing: 30.11.2022Pronounced: 21.12.2022

Date of Hearing : 30.11.2022 Date of Pronouncement : 21.12.2022 ORDER This appeal filed by assessee is directed against the Order of the Ld. CIT(A)-17, New Delhi, dated 21.07.2015 relating to the A.Y. 2006-07.

2.

The grounds of appeal

raised by the assessee read as under:- “1. That on the facts & circumstance of the case, the order passed by the Ld. A.O. is bad both in law and on facts of the case.

2. That on the facts & circumstance of the case, The Ld. A.O. has erred in making addition of Rs. 20,25,586/- on A/c of bogus purchases & C1T(A)-17, New Delhi further erred in upholding the addition to the tune of Rs. 4,05,117/- @ 20% of Rs. 20,25,586/- on A/c of bogus purchases & balance addition of Rs. 16,20,469/- has been deleted.

2 ITA.No.2473/Del./2016

3. The Ld. CIT(A)-17 is totally unjustified in upholding the addition of Rs. 4,05,117/- where there is no bogus purchase as the assessee’s sale have been accepted. The additions are uphold without any basis.

4.

That the appellant craves leave to add, amend or alter any of the grounds of appeal.”

3.

When the appeal was taken up for hearing, nether the assessee nor any authorized representative of the assessee appeared nor any adjournment application has been filed despite due issuance and service of the notice to the assessee. Hence I proceed to adjudicate the appeal, after hearing the ld. Sr. DR appearing for the Department.

4. The main contention of the assessee before the authorities below was that no addition can be made on account of bogus purchases. Before this Bench, the grounds of the assessee reveals that the assessee is aggrieved by the order of the ld. CIT(A) in upholding the addition of Rs.4,05,117/- @ 20% of Rs.20,25,586/- on account of bogus purchases. It was the contention of the assessee that when the sales has been accepted no addition can be made. The ld. CIT(A) restricted the addition to 20% of the impugned amount of bogus purchases and deleted the remaining part of 80%. But, the assessee is still aggrieved.

5.

In my considered opinion, the analogy adopted by the ld.CIT(A) while confirming and restricting the addition to 20% was that the 20% cost has been shown from the parties who have given accommodation entries is not 3 ITA.No.2473/Del./2016 applicable to the case of a seller. Therefore, the percentage adopted by the ld.CIT(A) is reduced to 10% in place of 20% to plug all possible leakage of revenue and, thus, the addition is restricted to Rs.2,02,554/- only. The assessee gets part relief. 6. In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed. Order pronounced in the open court on 21.12.2022.

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →