ITO 25 (2)(1), MUMBAI vs. JAI PRAVIN GANDHI, MUMBAI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 1359/MUM/2022Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 October 2022AY 2010-114 pages
AI SummaryDismissed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal confirmed the order of the CIT(A), finding no error in restricting the disallowance to 8% based on the precedent set in the assessee's own case for AY 2009-10. The Revenue failed to provide any reason to deviate from this established position.

What were the facts?

The Assessing Officer made an addition of 12.5% on non-genuine purchases of ₹1,14,01,054/-. The CIT(A) restricted this addition to 8% by following a previous ITAT order for an earlier assessment year in the assessee's own case.

What were the issues?

Whether the CIT(A) erred in restricting the disallowance on non-genuine purchases from 12.5% to 8% by following a co-ordinate bench's decision in the assessee's own case.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 143,Section 147,Section 148,Section 133(6)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “SMC” BENCH, MUMBAI

For Respondent: Shri. Ujjawal Chavan. (SR AR)
Hearing: 19.09.2022
1.

This appeal is filed by the Income Tax Officer- 25(2)(1), Mumbai (the learned Assessing Officer) against the order of the National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi [the learned CIT (A)] for A.Y.2010-11 dated 31st March, 2022, wherein the appeal filed by the assessee against the assessment order dated 29th February, 2016 passed under Section 143 read with section 147 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (the Act), by the Income Tax Officer, making addition of ₹14,25,132/- being 12.5% of non-genuine purchase of ₹1,14,01,054/- was restricted by the learned CIT (A) to 8% following the order of the co-ordinate Bench in assessee’s own case for A.Y. 2009-10.

“1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstance of the case and in law, the Learned CIT (A) has erred in restricting the disallowance to 8% of accommodation entries of purchase bills, which according to information received from Sales Tax Department were issued by dealers who are indulging in issuing bogus bills and not disputed by CIT(A), as against addition of 12.5% on total bogus purchase by Assessing Officer without giving any congent reason as to why disallowance of 8% should be done and not 12.5% as done by the Assessing Officer?.

2.

Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the learned CIT(A) was correct in holding that estimation of profit of 8% instead of 12.5% of bogus purchases, is fair and justified, and failing to appreciate that the assessee could neither produce documentary evidence nor the books of accounts nor he could produce the alleged parties from whom purchase were claimed to have been made during the year.”

3.

The brief fact of the case shows that assessee is an individual , Proprietor of M/s Gandhi Enterprises engaged in the business of trading in Iron and Steel. He filed his return of income on 13th October 2010, at a total income of ₹3,42,984/-. Subsequently, the information was received from the DGIT Investigation, Mumbai that assessee has booked purchased for an amount of ₹1,14,00,154/- from 9 parties who figured into the list of

8.

In the result, the appeal of the learned Assessing Officer is dismissed.

Order pronounced in the open court on 31.10.2022.

More judgments on Section 147

All 49,210 judgments and leading authorities on Section 147 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →