SURESH MULCHAND SHAH HUF,MUMBAI vs. ITO - WD- 19(3)(4), MUMBAI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 6208/MUM/2018Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 April 2022AY 2011-123 pages

In favour of the Revenue: the assessee's appeal was dismissed. From the AI summary of this appeal.

AI SummaryDismissed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal found no merit in the assessee's plea that the AO's addition should be based on the lower figure mentioned in the show-cause notice. The CIT(A) had correctly upheld the AO's assessment based on the detailed party-wise bogus purchase amount of Rs. 1,49,79,715.

What were the facts?

The assessee appealed against an addition made by the Assessing Officer (AO) on account of purchases treated as from hawala dealers. The assessee contended that the AO issued a show-cause notice for Rs. 1,21,72,859 but made the addition on a base figure of Rs. 1,49,79,715.

What were the issues?

Whether the addition made by the AO should be based on the figure in the show-cause notice or the actual assessed amount. Whether purchases treated as from hawala dealers are liable for addition.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 69,Section 271(1)(c)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “G” Bench, Mumbai

For Respondent: Shri Hoshang B. Irani
Hearing: 20.01.2022Pronounced: 11.04.2022

O R D E R Per Shamim Yahya (AM) :-

This appeal by the assessee was earlier disposed off by the Tribunal vide order dated 26.7.2019. Subsequently, in M.A. No. 48/Mum/2020 vide order dated 11.12.2020 the order was recalled only to adjudicate ground No 3 therein which had remained un-adjudicated. Pursuant to the aforesaid recall the issue is before us.

2.

The ground No. 3 in the said appeal, which is against the order of learned CIT(A) dated 5.7.2018 pertaining to A.Y. 2011-12 reads as under :

“The learned CIT(A) erred in taking figure of Rs. 1,49,79,715/- whereas the total of all parties comes to Rs. 1,21,72,859/-.” 3. We have heard learned Departmental Representative and perused the records. Despite several notices, nobody appeared on behalf of the assessee. We note that on the impugned issue assessee in its appeal before learned CIT(A) has submitted as under :-

2 M/s. Suresh Mulchand Shah HUF

“3. The learned Income Tax Officer was not justified in making addition of Rs. 18,72,464/- on account of 12.5% of Rs. 1,49,79,715/- the purchase treated as purchase from hawala dealers. The show-cause notice was issued for Rs. 1,21,72,859/- but made addition on the base of Rs. 1,49,79,715/-.”

4.

Learned CIT(A) has dealt with the same as under :-

“It is the contention of learned counsel that the AO during the course of assessment proceedings had issued the show cause notice for an amount of Rs. 1,21,72,859/-. The actual amount as per the A.O in the Reasons and assessment order is Rs. 1,49,79,715/-. Hence, it can be concluded that Rs. 1,21,72,859/- had been inadvertently mentioned by the AO.

5.

Upon careful consideration, we find that the assessee’ plea has no merit. The Assessing Officer has duly given the detail of party-wise bogus purchase amounting to Rs. 1,49,79,715/-. The assessee even does not dispute the above. It submits that since in initial notice the figure was different the same should be considered and assessee should be granted substantial relief accordingly. We do not find any merit in this plea. Hence the same is rejected.

6.

In the result, this ground stands dismissed.

7.

The above order has to be read alongwith the ITAT order dated 26.07.2019 wherein other grounds have been adjudicated.

Order pronounced in the open court on 11.04.2022.

More judgments on Section 69

All 9,011 judgments and leading authorities on Section 69 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →