SHREEJI TRADERS,MUMBAI vs. DY CIT-CC-1, MUMBAI
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal found that while the purchases might have been from the grey market, the sales made from these purchases were not doubted. Therefore, the addition was restricted to an estimated profit of 12.5% of the bogus purchases.
What were the facts?
The assessee purchased goods from Kameshwar Trading P. Ltd. and received bills amounting to ₹77,832/-. The lower authorities treated these purchases as bogus, based on information from the Maharashtra Sales Tax Department. The assessee could not provide delivery challans.
What were the issues?
Whether purchases made against bills from a suspected hawala operator can be treated as entirely bogus, and if so, what is the appropriate disallowance.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “SMC” BENCH, MUMBAI
Before: SRI MAHAVIR SINGH
O R D E R भहावीय स िंह, उऩाध्मक्ष के द्वाया / PER MAHAVIR SINGH, VP: This appeal of the assessee is arising out of order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)]-1, Pune [in short CIT(A)], in appeal No. CIT(A), Pune-11/10176/2015-16 vide dated 20.08.2020. The Assessment was framed by the Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 1, Thane (in short DCIT/ AO) for the A.Y. 2010-11 vide order dated 02.02.2015 under section 143(3) read with section 147 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter ‘the Act’).
When this appeal was called for hearing, none was present from assessee. As seen the nature of additions made and grounds of appeal raised, the matter is heard.
2 Shreeji Traders; AY 10-11 3. The only issue in this appeal of assessee is as regards to the order of CIT(A) upholding the addition of ₹77,832/- treating the purchase made from Kameshwar Trading P. Ltd. as bogus. For this assessee, has raised the following ground No.2:-
2. Without prejudice to the above he has erred in law nd on facts in upholding addition of ₹ 77,832/- treating the said purchase from Kameshwar Trading P. ltd. As bogus without considering and appreciating the facts of the appellant.
I have heard the learned Sr. Departmental Representative and gone through the facts and circumstances of the case. I find from the orders of the lower authorities that the assessee is beneficiary of hawala bill issued by hawala operators found out by Maharashtra Sales Tax Department during the search conducted on several dealers and beneficiaries. The assessee has taken bills from Kameshwar Trading P. Ltd. amounting to ₹77,832/-. The assessee submitted the bills and vouchers but could not submit the delivery challan as the material was purchased by assessee. But I find that none of the authorities below have doubted the sales made out of this purchase and hence, it cannot be said that the assessee has not made sales. The assessee might have procured bills and made purchases from grey market for gaining some profit. Hence, I estimate the profit at the rate of 12.5 % of the bogus purchases of ₹77,832/- . I direct the Assessing Officer to restrict the disallowance at 12.5% of the bogus purchases accordingly.
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 →- Dipanshu Aggarwal vs. Director General Of GST IntelligenceDelhi · 28 Oct 2026
- Dezinetree Projects PVT. LTD. vs. Spokes Digital Inc And AnrDelhi · 28 Oct 2026
- Jaydeep Jayantilal Hudaka vs. State Of GujaratGujarat · 28 Oct 2026
- Commissioner/Additional Commissioner Of Central Tax vs. M/S INDIA Agro Exports Private LimitedKarnataka · 28 Oct 2026
- Manoj Kumar Prop M K Steel Traders vs. Additional Commissioner, Central Goods And Services Tax & Anr.Delhi · 28 Oct 2026