INCOME TAX OFFICER 12(1)(1), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. ARUDHA TRADERS PRIVATE LIMITED, MUMBAI
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, MUMBAI BENCH “A” MUMBAI
Before: SHRI NARENDRA KUMAR CHOUDHRY () & SHRI OMKARESHWAR CHIDARA ()
PER OMKARESHWAR CHIDARA, AM
These appeals by the Revenue are directed against two separate orders both dated 29.01.2024 passed by the National
Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), New Delhi [in short ‘the Ld. CIT(A)’].
The Revenue f following grounds of 2015-16. i. Whether on t Ld. CIT(A) is ju purchases to th as made by th Kapadia Group transactions w purchases, clai entities of the a ii. "Whether on Ld.CIT(A) is jus purchases to th as made by th the juri iction 3. Whether on the Ld. CIT(A)/ Court Decision CTR 334 (SC). 3. The main issue on account of bogus The Learned DR reli 12.5% of the bogus p 4. Per contra, the that the issue was co 2016-17 and 201 1439/Mum/2024, I 22.8.2024 in their o addition to 2.5% of facts and circumstan Arudha T ITA Nos. 14
filed the above captioned ap appeal for the Assessment Yea the facts & circumstances of the case and in ustified in restricting the addition on account he extent of 2.5% of such purchases as again he AO, ignoring the fact that the One World G up of entities are involved in bogus sale/
without any actual delivery of goods and ther imed by the assessee company to have made abovementioned groups, are bogus in nature?
n the facts and circumstances of the case in stified in restricting the addition on account he extent of 2.5% of such purchases as again he AO, completely ignoring the judicial ruling nal Hon’ble ITAT in this regard.
the facts and in circumstances of the case an /NFAC has erred in not relying on Hon’ble in the case of N. K Proteins Ltd. Vs. DCIT(2
e involved in this case is wheth purchases should be made @ 1
ied on the Assessment Order a purchases should be confirmed.
e Learned AR of the appellant overed in their favour for the As 18-19. The ITAT vide ord
TA No. 1438 and 1443/Mu own case held that the AO sho the alleged bogus purchases nces of the case mentioned in Traders Private Limited
2
441 & 1440/MUM/2024
ppeals with the ars 2014-15 and n law, the t of bogus nst 12.5%,
Group and /purchase refore, the e from the ?.
n law the t of bogus nst 12.5%, g given by nd in law,
Supreme
2017) 292
her the addition
12.5% or 2.5%.
and argued that has submitted ssessment Years ders
ITA
No.
um/2024 dated ould restrict the in the peculiar the Assessment order. The ITAT has d of the bogus purcha that the malpractices
10% of the sales ta approximately 2.5%.
Ld. CIT(A) also.
5. As the issue is other assessment ye
ITAT, the Revenue a alleged bogus purcha mentioned in the ass
6. Both the abo
1441/Mum/2024 an Order pronoun (NARENDER KUMA
JUDICIAL M
Mumbai;
Dated: 07/01/2025
Milan, LDC
Copy of the Order forward
1. The Appellant
2. The Respondent.
3. CIT
4. DR, ITAT, Mumbai
5. Guard file.
Arudha T
ITA Nos. 14
directed the AO to restrict the a ases because the Learned AO h s of the bogus purchases was o ax and the profit margin in The same facts are mentioned squarely covered in favour of th ears, respectfully following the appeal is dismissed by holding ases is to be restricted at 2.5% in essment order.
ove appeals of the Revenue nd 1440/Mum/2024 are dismiss ced in the open Court on 07/0
-
AR CHOUDHRY)
(OMKARESH
MEMBER
ACCOUNT ded to :
Traders Private Limited
3
441 & 1440/MUM/2024
addition to 2.5%
himself recorded only to save the the industry is d in the order of he assessee and e orders of the the addition of nstead of 12.5%
e in ITA No.
sed.
01/2025. HWAR CHIDARA)
TANT MEMBER
////
Arudha T
ITA Nos. 14
BY ORDER
(Assistant Re
ITAT, Mu
Traders Private Limited
4
441 & 1440/MUM/2024
R, gistrar) umbai