ACIT, CIRCLE-6(2)(1),MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. M/S. CREO LIFESTYLES P. LTD., MUMBAI
In favour of the assessee: the Revenue's appeal was dismissed. From the AI summary of this appeal.
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to restrict the addition to 12.5% of the bogus purchases, considering it a reasonable estimation of the profit element. The revenue's appeal was dismissed as they could not provide new evidence to controvert the CIT(A)'s findings.
What were the facts?
The Assessing Officer (AO) received information that the assessee had obtained accommodation entries/bills from bogus parties for purchases. The AO made a 100% addition of these bogus purchases. The CIT(A) restricted the addition to 12.5% of the bogus purchases, considering the profit element.
What were the issues?
Whether the addition for bogus purchases should be 100% or a percentage representing the profit element. Whether the CIT(A) erred in restricting the addition to 12.5% without proper findings.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Cases cited in this judgment(2)Show listHide 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.
- CIT v. Simit P. Sheth1,465 citing356 ITR 451 · 2013 · HC
- Pooja Paper Trading Co. v. ITO21 citing104 Taxmann.com 95 · 2019 · HC
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “C” BENCH, MUMBAI
(A.Y: 2010-11) ACIT – 6(2)(1) Vs. M/s Creo Lifestyle Pvt Room No. 504, Ltd, Aayakar Bhavan, 161, 2nd Floor, Starcity MK Road, Manmala Tank Road, Mumbai – 4000 020 Mahim West Mumbai – 400016. �थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./PAN/GIR No. : AABCI8961N Appellant .. Respondent Appellant by : None Respondent by : Shri R.A. Dhyani.Sr. DR Date of Hearing 24.02.2022 Date of Pronouncement 25.02.2022 आदेश / O R D E R
PER PAVAN KUMAR GADALE JM:
The revenue has filed the appeal against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-12 Mumbai, passed u/s 143(3) r.w.s 147 and 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The revenue has raised the following grounds of appeal.
(i). On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in restricting the addition of Rs. 1,68,339/- on account of bogus purchases to only 12.5% of the M/s Creo Lifestyle Pvt Ltd., Mumbai. - 2 - such bogus purchase, without giving any findings as to how 12.5% has been worked out and also ignoring that the assessee failed to discharge the onus on it to establish during the assessment proceedings, the genuineness of purchase which were made through bogus parties.
(ii). On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in restricting the addition on account of bogus purchase to only 12.5% of the bogus purchase, without appreciating the ratio of the decision of the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in the case of N.K. Protiens Ltd, wherein it has been held that in the event of bogus purchases, the addition of whole of such purchases is required to be made and this decision has been confirmed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in SLP No. CC No. 769 of 2017, by dismissing the SLP of that assesee.
(iii). The information was generated by Maharashtra Sales Tax Department and received through the Investigation Wing of the Income Tax Department. As such, the case squarely falls under the exception 10(e) of Circular No. 312018 dated 1110712018 and amendment thereto dated 2010812018.
(iv). The Appellant prays that the order of the CIT (Appeals) on the above grounds be set aside and that of the AO be restored.
(v). The Appellant craves leave to amend or alter any ground or to submit additional new ground, which may be necessary.
The Brief facts of the case are that the assessee is 2. engaged in the business of buying and selling of readymade garments and accessories. The assessee
M/s Creo Lifestyle Pvt Ltd., Mumbai. - 3 - has filed the return of income on 13.10.2010 for the A.Y 2010-11 declaring total loss of Rs. (-) 56,49,374 and the return of income was processed u/s 143(1) of the Act. Subsequently the Assessing officer (A.O.) has received information that the assessee is the beneficiary in obtaining the accommodation entries/bills from the bogus parties as per the information from Sales Tax Department Maharashtra. The A.O. has observed that the assessee has obtained the purchase bills from M/s. Siddhivinayak Corporation of Rs. 13,46,712/-. Therefore, the A.O has reason to believe that the income has escaped assessment and issued notice u/s 148 of the Act. In compliance, the assessee has filed a letter dated 07.09.2014 to treat the return of income filed earlier for the A.Y 2009-10 as due compliance. Further, the A.O. has issued notice u/s 143(2) and 142(1) of the Act and called for the information. In compliance, the Ld. AR of the assessee appeared from time to time and the case was discussed. The A.O in order to check the transactions of the purchases has called for the information and documents to be produced. Further the A.O to test check the genuineness of the transactions has issued notice u/s 133(6) of the Act on the party parties and the said notice was returned unserved by M/s Creo Lifestyle Pvt Ltd., Mumbai. - 4 - the postal authorities. Finally, the A.O. has dealt on the information and the available evidences and is of the opinion that the assessee has indulge in bogus purchases and made 100% addition of bogus purchases and passed the order u/s 143(3) r.w.s 147 of the Act dated 23.03.2016.
Aggrieved by the order, the assessee has filed an appeal before the CIT(A). The CIT(A) in the appellate proceedings considered the grounds of appeal, findings of the A.O in the scrutiny assessment, submissions of the assessee on the disputed issue. Finally the CIT(A) considered the judicial decisions of the Honble High Court and Honble Tribunal and restricted the addition to the extent of 12.5% of bogus purchases and granted partial relief to the assessee. Aggrieved by the CIT(A) order, the revenue has filed an appeal before the Honble Tribunal.
4. At the time of hearing, none appeared on behalf of the assessee and the Ld.DR submitted that the CIT(A) has erred in restricting the addition to 125% irrespective of facts that no proper information was filed in the Assessment proceedings.
M/s Creo Lifestyle Pvt Ltd., Mumbai. - 5 -
We heard the Ld.DR submissions and perused the material on record. The sole crux of the disputed issue as envisaged by the Ld.DR that the CIT(A) has restricted the addition to the extent of 12.5% of the bogus purchases considering profit element embedded. We found that the CIT(A) has dealt on the facts and considered the Hon’ble High Court decision and took a view. Further, We find the Jurisdictional Honble High Court in the case of Pooja Paper Trading Co. Vs. ITO, (104 taxmann.com 95) and Honble Gujarat High court in CIT Vs. Simit P Sheth (2013) (356 ITR 451) has upheld the disallowance @ 12.5% on such purchases.
We find that the Ld.CIT(A) took a reasonable view that the only profit percentage has to be added and estimated @ 12.5% of bogus purchases. The Ld.DR could not controvert the observations of the Ld. CIT(A) with any new cogent evidence and material but relied only on the A.O order. We are of the opinion that the CIT(A) dealt on the facts and considered the profit element in the bogus purchases and also the A.O has not disputed the sales. The Ld.CIT(A) has relied on the decisions of Hon’ble High Court and passed a reasoned order. Accordingly, we do not find any infirmity in the order of the CIT(A) and M/s Creo Lifestyle Pvt Ltd., Mumbai. - 6 - uphold the same and dismiss the grounds of appeal raised by the revenue.
In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed.
Order pronounced in the open court on 25.02.2022.
Sd/- Sd/- (S RIFAUR RAHMAN) (PAVAN KUMAR GADALE) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER Mumbai, Dated 25.02.2022 KRK, PS आदेश क� ��त�ल�प अ�े�षत/Copy of the Order forwarded to : 1. अपीलाथ� / The Appellant 2. ��यथ� / The Respondent. 3. संबं�धत आयकर आयु�त / The CIT(A) 4. आयकर आयु�त(अपील) / Concerned CIT �वभागीय ��त�न�ध, आयकर अपील�य अ�धकरण, अहमदाबाद / DR, ITAT, Mumbai 5. 6. गाड� फाईल / Guard file. आदेशानुसार/ BY ORDER, स�या�पत ��त //True Copy// ( Asst. Registrar)
ITAT, Mumbai
Similar judgments
Other orders that rely on the same authority or decide the same section.
- Income Tax Officer, Ward-5(1)(2), Noida vs Bhavya Pipe Industry, Greater NoidaDelhi14 Oct 2025Dismissed
Also relies on Pooja Paper Trading Co. v. ITO and 1 other authority
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to estimate the profit element on bogus purchases at the GP rate of 1.39%, considering it a fair and reasonable estimation. The disallowance of carriage inward expenses related t...
- Income Tax Officer, Delhi vs Akash Deep Sethi, DelhiDelhi16 Jul 2025Dismissed
Also relies on Pooja Paper Trading Co. v. ITO and 1 other authority
The Tribunal upheld the lower appellate authority's decision to treat purchases as non-genuine but restricted the addition to 2.46% of the turnover as net profit, aligning with the assessee's declared average gross profi...
- ITO, Ward-2(1), Thane vs Shri Mehul Shantilal Bhavsar, ThaneMumbai5 Sept 2024Dismissed
Also relies on Pooja Paper Trading Co. v. ITO and 1 other authority
The CIT(A) allowed the appeal partly by restricting the addition to 12.5% of the bogus purchases, considering the profit element. The revenue appealed this decision. The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s order, finding its vi...
- Income Tax Officeer -27(1) (1), Navi Mumbai vs M/S. Dura Opto Technologies, MumbaiMumbai14 Jun 2023Dismissed
Also relies on Pooja Paper Trading Co. v. ITO and 1 other authority
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s order, finding that the estimation of profit at 12.5% on bogus purchases was a reasonable view. The Tribunal also found the partial disallowance of expenses to be justified.
- ITO Ward-2(1), Thane vs Shri Rajesh Kumar G. Jain, BhayanderMumbai24 May 2023Dismissed
Also relies on Pooja Paper Trading Co. v. ITO and 1 other authority
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s order, agreeing that only the profit element embedded in bogus purchases should be added. The Tribunal found the CIT(A)'s estimation of 12.5% profit to be a reasonable view, supported by ...
More judgments on Section 147
- ACIT Central Bilaspur, Bilaspur vs Arun Kumar Agrawal, SaktiITSSA 26/RPR/2025[2018-19]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2018-19
- Vinod Agrawal, Kawardha vs Assisstant Commissioner of Income Tax…ITA 666/RPR/2026[2019-20]Status: Heard21 Oct 2026AY 2019-20
- Sar Business Tradelink Private Limited… vs Income Tax Officer, Ward - 1(2), RaipurITA 599/RPR/2026[2014-15]Status: Heard21 Oct 2026AY 2014-15
- Tarunaben Maganlal Bhut, Navagam vs ITO Ward 2(2)(1), RajkotITA 673/RJT/2026[2024-25]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2024-25
- Neo Incorporation, Rajkot vs DCIT Circle- 1(2), RajkotITA 471/RJT/2026[2012-2013]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2012-2013
Latest GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- M/S B.K. Agency Under The Proprietor Of Bhola Prasad vs. The Chief Commissioner, CGSTPatna · 2 Nov 2026
- R.K.Service Station, Balasore vs. Commissioner CT And GST Odisha, CuttackOrissa · 31 Oct 2026
- Tankala Soumya vs. Assistant Commissioner Of State Tax, CT And GST, Rayagada Circle, RayagadaOrissa · 31 Oct 2026
- M/S Pooja, Town Hallroad, Cuttack vs. State Tax Officer, Cuttack-I West Circle,CuttackOrissa · 31 Oct 2026
- M/S Chicvogue Fashions Lip, Ganjam vs. State Tax Officer Bhubaneswar- Ii CircleOrissa · 31 Oct 2026