ACIT,CIRCLE -20(1),MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. UTKARSHA VIVEK PARKAR, MUMBAI

ITA 6513/MUM/2025Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 March 2026AY 2011-12Bench: SHRI SAKTIJIT DEY (Vice President), SHRI MAKARAND VASANT MAHADEOKAR (Accountant Member)1 pages
AI SummaryDismissed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to restrict the addition to 12.5% of the alleged bogus purchases. This was based on the principle that only the profit element embedded in such purchases should be taxed when sales are accepted and purchases are recorded in books.

What were the facts?

The Assessing Officer (AO) added Rs. 28,28,113/- as unexplained expenditure under Section 69C for alleged bogus purchases from hawala dealers. The assessee had provided purchase invoices and made payments through banking channels, and the corresponding sales were not doubted.

What were the issues?

Whether the entire alleged bogus purchases should be disallowed when corresponding sales are accepted, or if only the profit element should be taxed.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 69C,Section 143(3),Section 147,Section 148,Section 250,Section 271(1)(c)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Cases cited in this judgment(2)Show list

Detected automatically from the text. Citations are also linked where they appear in the judgment. The count shows how many other judgments on BharatTax rely on the same authority.

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “F” BENCH MUMBAI

For Appellant: Ms. Dinkle Hariya, Ld. AR
For Respondent: Shri Nayanjyoti Nath, Ld. DR, Ms. Dinkle Hariya, Ld. AR
Hearing: 11.03.2026Pronounced: 16.03.2026

PER MAKARAND VASANT MAHADEOKAR, AM: This appeal by the Revenue is directed against the order passed under section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [hereinafter referred to as "the Act"]by the Ld.

Addl./JCIT(Appeals), Panchkula from the office of the Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeal) [hereinafter referred to as 2 Utkarsha Vivek Parkar "CIT(A)"] dated 21.08.2025, arising from the assessment order passed by the Assessing Officer under section 143(3) read with section 147 of the Act dated 20.12.2018 for Assessment Year 2011-12. 2. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee is an individual engaged in proprietary business under

The order continues below.

Read the full judgment

A free account opens 10 full judgments a month. Re-reading one you have already opened does not count again.

Create a free accountSign in

See plans and prices

The summary, the parties, the sections and the citations above are open to everyone and always will be. Only the text of the order and the PDF are metered.

More judgments on Section 69C

All 8,217 judgments and leading authorities on Section 69C →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →