ITO-12(2)(1) MUMBAI, AAYAKAR BHAWAN vs. HARMONY ADDITIVES PRIVATE LIMITED, GOREGAON EAST

We observe from the assessment order that the Assessing Officer, while noticing that the Assessee had neither furnished any submission nor provided any new address of the parties, from whom the purchases had allegedly been made and to whom notices

Thus, the Assessee, being aggrieved, challenged said addition by filing the first appeal before the Ld. Commissioner, who, vide impugned order, took into consideration the fact that, in the Assessee’s own case for the A.Y. 2009-10, the Tribunal, vide order dated 11.09.2017 passed in ITA No.1103/Mum/2017, had restricted an identical addition to 12.5% of the value of the alleged bogus purchases. Accordingly, following the aforesaid decision of the Tribunal in the Assessee’s own case, the Ld. Commissioner restricted the addition to 12.5% of the disputed purchases of Rs.15,86,146/-.

Thus, the Revenue, being aggrieved, has preferred the instant appeal.

We have heard the parties, perused the material available on record and considered the rival submissions. The Ld. DR submitted that, during the assessment proceedings, the Assessee had failed to furnish the requisite submissions and supporting documents and had further failed to produce the parties mentioned in paragraph 3 of the assessment order, from whom purchases aggregating to Rs.15,86,146/- had allegedly been made.

Whereas on being asked, the Assessee drew our attention to the relevant documents before us and the para no. 2 of the Assessment order and demonstrated that the Assessing officer has specifically endorsed/referred to the filing of its reply in “TAPAL”, in the said paragraph.

We also compared the assessment orders pertaining to the year under consideration and the A.Y. 2009-10 and observed that, during the A.Y. 2009-10 also, the Assessee had made identical

The said addition ultimately came up before the Tribunal, who, vide order dated 11.09.2017 passed in ITA No.1103/Mum/2017, after considering the identical factual aspects, restricted the addition to 12.5% of the disputed purchases.

Thus, the Ld. Commissioner, following the aforesaid decision of the Tribunal in the Assessee’s own case, restricted the addition under consideration to 12.5% of the disputed purchases. Considering the peculiar facts and circumstances in totality, we do not find any infirmity in the conclusion drawn by the Ld. Commissioner. Consequently, the impugned order restricting the addition to 12.5% of the disputed purchases, is upheld.

In the result, the Revenue’s appeal is dismissed.