ITO 19(1)(1),MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. BASE TECHNOLOGY, MUMBAI
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “SMC” BENCH, MUMBAI
Before: SHRI NARENDER KUMAR CHOUDHRY, JM ITO 19(1)(1), Mumbai
Per Narender Kumar Choudhry, J M:
This appeal has been preferred by the Revenue against the order dated 24.12.2024, impugned herein, passed by the National Faceless
Appeal Center (NFAC)/ Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)
(in short Ld. Commissioner) u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short ‘the Act’) for the A.Y. 2009-10. 2. At the outset, it is observed that there is a delay of 31 days in filing the instant appeal, on which the revenue has demonstrated the Base Technology reasonable, plausible and unintentional cause for delay, thus, the delay is condoned.
Coming to the merits of the case, it is observed that in the instant case, the Assessing Officer (AO) vide assessment order dated 13.03.2015, has made the addition of Rs. 1,09,995/- being 12.5% of the non-genuine purchase of Rs. 8,79,961/- as profit element involved to meet the end of justice. The Ld. Commissioner on appeal further reduced the said addition to the extent of 10% of the bogus purchases by following the judgment of the Hon'ble Coordinate bench of the Tribunal in the case of Leela Behen Kantilal Parikh vs. ITO (ITA No. 2926/Mum/2023), decided on 29.12.2023, wherein the Hon'ble Bench restricted the addition to the extent of 10% the bogus purchases by following the judgement of the Hon'ble Juri ictional 5. This Court by giving thoughtful consideration to the determinations made by the Authorities below, is of the considered opinion that decision of the Ld. Commissioner in restricting the addition to the tune @10% of the bogus purchase as alleged, is not only based on the merits of the case but also based on the judgements of the Hon'ble High Court and Hon'ble Coordinate Bench of the Tribunal referred to above. Thus, there is no infirmity and/or illegality in the impugned order and hence, the same is upheld. Base Technology
In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed.
Order pronounced in the open court on 27.11.2025 (NARENDER KUMAR CHOUDHRY)
JUDICIAL MEMBER
Mumbai;
Karishma J. Pawar, SR. PS
Copy of the Order forwarded to:
1. The Appellant
2. The Respondent
3. CIT- concerned
4. DR, ITAT, Mumbai
5. Guard File
BY ORDER,
(Dy./Asstt.