Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, MUMBAI BENCH “SMC”, MUMBAI
ORDER PER VIKAS AWASTHY, J.M: This appeal by the Revenue is directed against the order of Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-28, Mumbai [hereinafter referred to as ‘the CIT(A)’] ' dated 15.07.2019 for the Assessment Year (AY) 2011-12. 2. Sh. Sajjay J. Sethi representing the Department submitted that the assessee has obtained accommodation entries aggregating to Rs. 2,45,113/- आअसं. 6373/मुं/2019 (िन.व.2011-12) (A.Y. 2011-12) from Mahendra Shantilal Patel, a bogus entry provider on commission basis. Thus, the Assessing Officer (AO) made addition of the entire bogus purchases. The ld. CIT(A) has deleted the entire addition. The ld. Departmental Representative (DR) submitted that the CIT(A) has failed to appreciate the fact that the assessee was not able to discharge its onus in proving genuineness of the purchases, no confirmations were filed by the assessee nor the assessee was able to produce the suppliers. The CIT(A) has deleted the entire addition merely on surmises and conjectures.
On the other hand, Sh. Dalpat Shah representing the assessee vehemently defended the impugned order and prayed for dismissing the appeal by the Revenue.
Both sides heard, orders of the authorities below examined. A perusal of the impugned order shows that the CIT(A) has deleted the addition by observing that the AO has made addition merely on preponderance of probabilities without their being any cogent evidence or circumstances indicating assessee’s involvement in obtaining accommodation entries. I concur with the findings of CIT(A) and hence upheld the same.