Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, PUNE BENCH “SMC”, PUNE
PER SUSHMA CHOWLA, JM:
The appeal filed by assessee is against the order of CIT(A), Pune-3, Pune, dated 14.11.2017 relating to assessment year 2009-10 against order passed under section 143(3) r.w.s. 147 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (in short ‘the Act’).
The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal:-
ITA No.1199/PUN/2018 2 M/s. Suyash Enterprises
The learned CIT(A)-3, Pune erred in law and on facts in sustaining addition of Rs.15,90,813 made by the learned AO on account of alleged bogus purchases. 2. The leaned CIT(A)-3, Pune erred in law and on facts in not granting sufficient opportunity of being heard to the appellant. Appellant contends that since process of compilation of papers was not over, adjournment was sought for. Learned CIT(A)-3, Pune ought to have granted some more time for submission to the appellant. 3. The learned C1T(A)-3, Pune erred in law and on facts in sustaining the jurisdiction assumed by the learned AO u/s 147 of the ITA, 1961. Learned CIT(A)-3 erred in law in holding the issue against the appellant just because, a contention to this effect was not raised before the learned AO. 4. The learned CIT(A)-3, Pune erred in law and on facts in dismissing the appellant's ground of appeal as regards non-grant of cross examination and / or not extending copies of incriminating material, just because a contention to this effect was not raised before the learned AO. 5. The learned CIT(A)-3, Pune erred in law and on facts in sustaining the addition of Rs.15,90,813 on account of suppression of alleged GP by overruling appellant's contention of double taxation and unfair addition, etc. 6. The CIT(A), Pune erred in law and on facts in confirming the GP rate @ 39.5% adopted by the learned AO for without considering document such purchase bills along with ledger account statement of concerned parties, transport freight receipts, octroi receipts, material inward notes which substantiate that said alleged hawala purchases are in fact, genuine and bonafide. 7. Without prejudice to the above grounds appellant contends that similar nature of addition was made in AY 2011-12 wherein the addition before the CIT(A) was restricted to 10%. The learned CIT(A)-3, Pune ought to have applied the same ratio for making addition for the year under consideration.
The assessee has raised several grounds of appeal against addition made on account of alleged bogus purchases but the learned Authorized Representative for the assessee pointed out that ground of appeal No.7 is pressed. Vide ground of appeal No.7, the assessee claims that addition on account of bogus purchases be restricted to the extent of 10% as directed by the CIT(A) in assessment year 2011-12 and as decided by the Tribunal in various cases.
The learned Departmental Representative for the Revenue placed reliance on the orders of authorities below.
ITA No.1199/PUN/2018 3 M/s. Suyash Enterprises
We have heard the rival contentions and perused the record. The issue which arises in the present appeal is against addition to be made in the hands of assessee on account of the alleged bogus purchases made by assessee. The assessment was reopened on account of certain information received from the Sales Tax Department about hawala parties, who had issued bills without delivery of goods. However, the Tribunal in series of cases with lead order in M/s. Chhabi Electricals Pvt. Ltd. Vs. DCIT in ITA No.795/PUN/2014, relating to assessment year 2010-11, order dated 28.04.2017 has decided the issue that where the trail of goods is established, then the addition is to be restricted to GP rate of 10% over and above the GP rate declared by assessee. The learned Authorized Representative for the assessee has only pressed ground of appeal No.7 and allowing the same, the Assessing Officer is directed to restrict the addition to GP rate of 10% over and above the GP rate declared by assessee. It may be pointed out that the said rate has been applied by the CIT(A) in appellate order for assessment year 2011-12. Accordingly, ground of appeal No.7 is decided and all the other grounds of appeal are dismissed as not pressed. The grounds of appeal raised by assessee are thus, partly allowed.
In the result, appeal of assessee is partly allowed.
Order pronounced on this 8th day of February, 2019.
Sd/- (SUSHMA CHOWLA) न्याययक सदस्य / JUDICIAL MEMBER ऩुणे / Pune; ददनाांक Dated : 8th February, 2019. GCVSR
ITA No.1199/PUN/2018 4 M/s. Suyash Enterprises
आदेश की प्रयिलऱपप अग्रेपषि/Copy of the Order is forwarded to : 1. अऩीऱाथी / The Appellant; 2. प्रत्यथी / The Respondent; 3. आयकर आयुक्त(अऩीऱ) / The CIT(A), Pune-3; 4. The Pr.CIT-2, Pune; ववभागीय प्रतततनधध, आयकर अऩीऱीय अधधकरण, ऩुणे, एक-सदस्य 5. मामऱा / DR ‘SMC’, ITAT, Pune; गार्ड पाईऱ / Guard file. 6. आदेशािुसार/ BY ORDER, सत्यावऩत प्रतत //True Copy// वररष्ठ तनजी सधिव / Sr. Private Secretary आयकर अऩीऱीय अधधकरण ,ऩुणे / ITAT, Pune