Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “SMC” BENCH, MUMBAI
The present appeal has been preferred by the assessee against the order dated 25/03/2021 of the National Faceless Appeal Centre [hereinafter referred to as ‘CIT(A)’] passed u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act’).
The assessee in this appeal has taken the following grounds of appeal:
“1. That the Ld. C.I.T. (Appeals) has erred in passing a non speaking appellate order in summary manner without appreciating the detailed appeal submission and evidences furnished on appeal record in confirming the disallowance made by ld. A.O. of
2. That the disallowance of entire trading purchases made by the Ld. A.O. and confirmed by Ld. C.I.T. (Appeals) being wrong on facts and bad in law on the below stated grounds therefore same may kindly be deleted: a) There is no dispute that assessee is a trader, b) Also there is no dispute about the corresponding sales made out of disputed purchases with reference to quantity and value, c) If disputed purchases has to be disallowed then corresponding sales is also required to be removed from trading account as per matching principal of accountancy and settled tax law position, d) Case of assessee being a small trader is covered U/s.44AD and ITR filed and profit offered to tax is in consonance of the said provisions, e) Payment to alleged dealer was made through proper banking channels, g) Ratio of judgement relied by Ld. C.I.T.(Appeals) to confirm the alleged disallowance is entirely misplaced and unapplicable to facts of the case of trader assessee as has been decided in several judgments of hon'ble jurisdictional High Court of Bombay and ITAT, Mumbai
That the appellant craves the leave to amend alter substitute and or to raise new or additional grounds of appeal at the time of hearing.”
3. The sole issue raised by the assessee in this appeal regarding the action of the lower authorities in making disallowance of the entire trading purchases shown by the assessee of ₹10,56,360/-, treating the same as bogus purchases.
At the outset, the learned counsel for the assessee has submitted that the annual turnover of the assessee is less than ₹40 lacs, therefore, the assessee has returned his profit on adhoc basis under section 44AD of the Act. So far as the question of the source of investment in the alleged bogus purchases is concerned, it has not been doubted by the Department. The sales have also not been doubted by the department. The only question is that the purchases were bogus as per the information received by the department. May it be so, the question here is that the assessee if might have purchased the products from grey
In the Result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed.
Order pronounced in the open court on 19.05.2022.