Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, AHMEDABAD “A” BENCH, AHMEDABAD
Per Pramod Kumar, Vice President:
By way of this appeal, the Assessing Officer has challenged correctness of the order dated 09.05.2016, passed by the ld. CIT(A) in the matter of assessment under section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for the assessment years 2012-13.
Grievances raised by the appellant are as follows :-
“1. The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in restricting the disallowance on account of bogus purchases by adopting 12.5% of the profit thereby giving relief of Rs.1,69,94,698/- as against Rs.1,94,22,850/- made in the assessment order without properly appreciating the facts of the case and the material brought on record. 2. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the ld. CIT(A) ought to have upheld the order of the Assessing Officer. 3. It is, therefore, prayed that the order of the ld. CIT(A) may be set aside and that of the Assessing Officer may be restored to the above extent.”
When the appeal was called out for hearing, learned representatives fairly agreed that the issue in appeal is now covered by Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court judgements wherein it is consistently held that a profit percentage of 12.5% can be applied in the cases
ITA No.1842/Ahd/2016 Assessment Year: 2012-13 Page 2 of 2
of such bogus purchases. The learned CIT(A), after referring the decision of CIT(A)-2, Ahmedabad, in appellant’s own case for the A.Ys. 2009-10 and 2010-11, on similar issue, has observed as under :
Since in the year under consideration, the issue is identically involved with the slight difference that the name of the supplier parties are different with the source of information. In A.Y. 2009-10 & 2010-11, the source of information with regard to bogus purchase was the outcome of the inquiries/investigation of the VAT Department, Maharashtra, while in the year under consideration, the information was based upon the search and seizure proceedings carried out in the case of third party namely: Tricon Construction, Ahmedabad by the Income Tax Department. Otherwise, the issue is same. Thus, following the decision of the ld. CIT(A) in appellant’s own case in the preceding years, decision/judgement of Hon’ble Courts including jurisdictional High Court and to maintain the consistency for the reasons discussed in the aforesaid appellate order, the disallowance of the bogus purchases/labour payments to the extent of 12.5% is found correct and justified and same is confirmed which comes to Rs.24,27,822/-. Relief is granted for the balance amount. 4. Respectfully following the esteemed views of Hon’ble High Court, and as no contrary decision has been cited before us, we approve the conclusions arrived at by the learned CIT(A) and decline to interfere in the matter.
In the result, the appeal is dismissed. Pronounced in the open Court on this 5th day 5. of April, 2019.
Sd/- Sd/- Ms. Madhumita Roy Pramod Kumar (Judicial Member) (Vice President) Ahmedabad, the 5th day of April, 2019
PBN/*
Copies to: (1) The appellant (2) The respondent (3) Commissioner (4) CIT(A) (5) Departmental Representative (6) Guard File By order TRUE COPY
Assistant Registrar Income Tax Appellate Tribunal Ahmedabad benches, Ahmedabad