Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “F” BENCH, MUMBAI
O R D E R PER PRASHANT MAHARISHI, AM: 01. This appeal is filed by the assessee for A.Y. 2009-10 against the order passed by the National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [the learned CIT (A)] dated 25th July, 2022, wherein appeal filed by the assessee against the assessment order passed on 16th March, 2015 by the ITO, Ward 6(3)(3), Mumbai, (the learned Assessing Officer) under Section 143(3) read with section 147 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (the Act) was party allowed.
The assessee is aggrieved with the appellate order and raised following grounds of appeal:-
“The Appellant appeals against the impugned Order dated July 25, 2022 passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC) [the „CIT(A)‟] under Section 253 of the
The CIT(A) ought to have held that jurisdiction assumed by the AD under Section 147 of the Addition was without fulfilling the jurisdictional pre-conditions as specified in Sections 147 to 151 of the Act and hence the reassessment proceedings and assessment order passed by him consequent thereto is legal and bad in law.
2. The CIT (A) ought to have held that the AO erred in holding that purchases made by the Appellant from alleged hawala dealer were bogus, despite the relevant evidences led by the Appellant before him.
3. In any event the CIT (A) erred in holding that for the balance 3 parties the Appellant could not produce details either before the AO or during course of appellate proceedings and accordingly upholding the estimation of profits arising with respect to purchases made from alleged hawala dealer at 8% of the purchases on only 2 out of the 5 parties and sustaining 100% addition for the balance 3 parties.”
Briefly stated facts of the case are that assessee is a company engaged in trading in ferrous and non-ferrous metals. It filed its return of income on 29th April, 2009 at ₹7,70,568/-. The return was processed under Section 143(1) of the Act. Subsequently, the assessment of the
The assessee preferred an appeal before National Faceless Appeal Centre. The learned CIT (A) considered the explanation of the assessee. It further considered the stock statement showing the purchase quantity and the corresponding sale quantity along with the sale invoices. It was further stated that the stock statement were provided to the learned Assessing Officer but the same were not considered. It was further stated that under similar circumstances addition was made for A.Y. 2010-11 which was deleted by the learned CIT (A). The learned CIT (A) called for the remand report from the learned Assessing Officer. The remand report was provided to the assessee and reply was given. Based on this, the learned CIT (A) held that in case of the assessee for A.Y. 2010-11 the co- ordinate Bench has restricted the addition to 8% of the total amount of purchases. However, it stated that in that year only 2 parties Om Traders and Mehta Enterprises, were considered and therefore, it restricted the addition to 8% of the total purchases from these two parties only. With respect to further three parties, the additions were confirmed to the extent of 100%. The assessee is aggrieved with that appellate order and is in appeal before us.
Despite notice to the assessee none appeared on behalf of the assessee and therefore, the issue is decided on the basis of the facts available on record.
We have carefully considered the contention of the learned Departmental Representative as well as perused the orders of the lower authorities. The assessee is in the business of trading of ferrous and non-ferrous metal. During the course of assessment proceedings, the assessee has produced the quantitative details. The quantity purchased from the alleged bogus suppliers was entered as purchases and those quantities were also sold to other parties. Therefore, the sales are not disputed. Identical facts in the case of the assessee for A.Y. 2010-11 existed and based on this reason , the co-ordinate Bench restricted the addition to the extent of 8% of such bogus purchases. The learned CIT (A) granted relief by confirming the addition to the extent of 8% with respect to only two parties. For the other three parties, the addition to the extent of 100% was confirmed. We find that while the sales are undisputed, the same reasoning should have been applied with respect to the purchases from other three parties. Therefore, respectfully following the decisions of the co-ordinate Bench in assessee’s own case for A.Y. 2010-11, we direct the learned Assessing Officer
Ground no.1 is with respect to the reopening of the assessment. We do not find any infirmity in the reopening proceedings. Accordingly, ground no.1 is dismissed.
Accordingly, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed.
Order pronounced in the open court on 23.12.2022.