PRINTRADE ISSUES INDIA P. LTD.,MUMBAI vs. ACIT - 7 (3)(2), MUMBAI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 1770/MUM/2020Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 March 2022AY 2009-106 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 held that the assessee, being a printing company, could not demonstrate that the purchased materials were linked to any sales. Therefore, decisions based on undisputed sales were not applicable, and the addition was justified.

What were the facts?

The assessee company, engaged in printing, was found to have made purchases from a listed hawala dealer. The Assessing Officer added 100% of these purchases to the income, alleging inflated expenditure and suppressed profit. The CIT(A) upheld this addition.

What were the issues?

Whether 100% of purchases from a hawala dealer should be added to income when the assessee is a manufacturer and cannot establish a link to sales.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 143(3),Section 147,Section 148

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Cases cited in this judgment(1)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, “C” BENCH, MUMBAI

For Appellant: Shri Mohan Makjija, AR
For Respondent: Shri V Tripathi, DR
Hearing: 10.01.2022Pronounced: 16.03.2022

(Assessment Year 2009-10) Printrade Issues India Private The Asst. Commissioner of Limited Income Tax, 7(3)(2) Gala No.17, Pragati Indus Aayakar Bhavan, Vs. Estate, 316, NM Joshi Marg, Mumbai-400 004 Lower Parel, Mumbai-400 011 (Appellant) (Respondent) PAN No. AACCP1550F Appellant by : Shri Mohan Makjija, AR Respondent by : Shri V Tripathi, DR Date of hearing: 10.01.2022 Date of pronouncement : 16.03.2022 O R D E R PER PRASHANT MAHARISHI, AM: 01. This appeal is field by assessee against the order passed by the Commissioner of income-tax (Appeals)-13, Mumbai dated 17th March, 2020, wherein the addition made by the learned Assessing Officer of ₹14,15,549/- was upheld. This is only the grievance in this appeal.

2.

Assessee has raised following grounds of appeal:-

“1. The Learned CIT(A) erred in confirming the addition of Rs. 1415549/- being 100% of alleged purchased made from bogus hawala dealers ignoring the submission made by the appellant.

5.

The above addition was contested before the learned Commissioner of income-tax (Appeals). The assessee submitted that the purchases are genuine therefore, no addition should be made. Alternatively, it was contested that income may be estimated at the rate of 12.5% of the bogus purchases. The learned CIT(A) rejected both the contentions and stated that assessee has not led any evidence with regard to the goods purchase and corresponding sales. No stock register or any quantitative details were furnished. Accordingly, the addition was confirmed.

7.

The appeal is delayed by 100 days. The assessee has submitted an application for condonation of delay and reasons stated is nationwide lockdown. Therefore, looking at the reasons causing delay, it is condoned and appeal is admitted.

8.

Before us, the learned Authorised Representative submitted that issue is squarely covered in favour of the assessee by the decision of Hon'ble Bombay High Court in Income Tax Appeal No. 1004 of 2016 in the case of Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Mohammad Haji Adam And Co. dated 11th February, 2019. He specifically referred to Paragraph no.8 of the above decision.

9.

The learned Departmental Representative vehemently supported the order of the lower authorities and submitted that in view of the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of NK Proteins Vs. DCIT [2017] 84 taxmann.com 195 (SC), there is no infirmity in the order of the learned Assessing Officer in making 100% addition. In the rejoinder, the learned Authorised Representative submitted that in the decision of Hon'ble Bombay High Court the above judgment is considered. 010. We have carefully considered the rival contentions and perused the orders of the lower authorities. The assessee is engaged in the business of printing. The allegation is

11.

In view of the above facts, we do not find any merit in the above appeal and the orders of the lower authorities are confirmed to that extent.

12.

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed.

Order pronounced in the open court on 16.03.2022.

More judgments on Section 147

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →