DY CIT -CC-1(4), MUMBAI vs. SHRI KAMLESH MANOHAR KANINGO, 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 profit percentage on bogus purchases to 2%. The Tribunal noted that the CIT(A) had followed the principle of judicial discipline by adhering to a prior Tribunal ruling.
What were the facts?
The assessee engaged in the business of metals had made bogus purchases from M/s. Unique Industrial Corporation. The Assessing Officer (AO) estimated profit at 5% on these purchases and made an addition. The CIT(A) reduced this profit percentage to 2%, relying on a previous Tribunal order.
What were the issues?
Whether the CIT(A) was justified in restricting the profit percentage on bogus purchases to 2% instead of the 5% estimated by the AO.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, ‘H‘ BENCH
आदेश / O R D E R PER M. BALAGANESH (A.M):
This appeal in A.Y.2011-12 arises out of the order by the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-47, Mumbai in appeal No.CIT(A)-47/10101/2018-19 dated 11/02/2021 (ld. CIT(A) in short) against the order of assessment passed u/s.143(3) rws 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as Act) dated 07/12/2018 by the ld. Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1(4), Mumbai (hereinafter referred to as ld. AO).
The only issue to be decided in this appeal is as to whether the ld. CIT(A) was justified in restricting the profit percentage on account of bogus purchases made by the assessee from M/s. Unique Industrial Corporation @2% as against 5% adopted by the ld. AO in the facts and circumstances of the instant case.
We have heard the rival submissions and perused the materials available on record. We find that assessee is engaged in the business of ferrous and non-ferrous metals and other items in the name and proprietorship concern M/s. Trisons Impex. The return of income for A.Y.2011-12 was filed by the assessee on 30/09/2011 declaring total income of Rs.2,82,66,660/- which was later revised on 30/12/2011 declaring same total income. Pursuant to the search action carried out u/s.132(1) of the Act at Tirupati Group of Companies on 29/04/2011, the assessee’s case was covered under the provisions of Section 153C of the Act. The order u/s.143(3) r.w.s. 153C was passed in the hands of the assessee on 27/03/2014 determining total income at Rs.3,72,73,060/- after making various additions including addition of Rs.47,50,000/- on account of bogus purchases (GP addition @5% of bogus purchases). Thereafter, information was received from DGIT (Investigation), Mumbai and accordingly, the case of the assessee was reopened u/s.147 of the Act. The first re-assessment proceedings were completed on 17/03/2016 determning total income at Rs.3,91,50,140/- after making addition of Rs.18,73,081/- on account of bogus purchases being GP addition @3.04% of bogus purchases. Later, a fresh piece of information was received from DDIT (Investigation Unit)-64, Mumbai stating that assessee had taken certain accommodation entries from certain entities. The ld. AO in second re-assessment proceedings observed that assessee had made bogus purchases of Rs.48,36,968/- from M/s. Unique Industrial Corporation. The sales made out of such purchases were not disputed by the Revenue. The ld. AO estimated the profit percentage of such bogus purchases @5% and made an addition of Rs.2,41,848/-. The ld. CIT(A) by placing reliance on the order of this Tribunal in the case of the assessee in dated 28/02/2017 restricted the profit percentage @2% as against 5% made by the ld. AO. The relevant operative potion of the Tribunal order had been reproduced in the order of the ld. CIT(A) and hence, the same are not reiterated herein for the sake of brevity. Since, the ld. CIT(A) had followed principle of judicial discipline by following the Tribunal order and no appeal has been preferred by the assessee against the impugned order of the ld. CIT(A) before us, we hold that the order of the ld. CIT(A) does not warrant any interference. Accordingly, the grounds raised by the Revenue are dismissed.
In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed. Order pronounced in open Court on 07/02/2022.
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
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- M/S Larsen And Toubro Limited vs. Joint Commissioner Of Central GST And Anr.Delhi · 27 Oct 2026
- T C Global INDIA Private Limited vs. Principal Commissioner Of Central GST, North DelhiDelhi · 27 Oct 2026
- Kamlasana Impex Private Limited vs. Director General Of GST Intelligence (Hq) Delhi) & Anr.Delhi · 27 Oct 2026
- Ritu Gautam Proprietor Of Ms Heritage International vs. Additional Commissioner Central Goods And Services Tax Appeals Ii Delhi & Anr.Delhi · 27 Oct 2026
- Sutha vs. The State Tax Officer(Inspection-3)Madras · 27 Oct 2026