ITO 6 (3)(1), MUMBAI vs. M/S IFHS STEELS PVT LTD., 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 held that while the assessee failed to prove the genuineness of purchases, the entire amount could not be disallowed as sales were not disputed. Only the suppressed profit margin could be brought to tax.
What were the facts?
The assessee, a steel trader, was found to have obtained bogus purchase bills from dealers declared as hawala operators. The Assessing Officer disallowed the entire purchases as the assessee failed to provide confirmations or evidence of goods trail.
What were the issues?
Whether the entire amount of bogus purchases can be disallowed when sales are not disputed, or only the profit element should be taxed?
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
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)-12, Mumbai [hereinafter referred to as ‘the CIT(A)’] ' dated 22.10.2019 for the Assessment Year (AY) 2011-12. 2. The brief facts of the case as emanating from records are: The assessee is trading in fasteners. On the basis of information received from the Sales Tax आअसं. 476/मुं/2020 (िन.व.2011-12) (A.Y. 2011-12) Department, Government of Maharashtra, assessment for AY 2011-12 in the case of assessee was re-opened. As per the information received, the assessee obtained bogus purchase bills aggregating to Rs. 14,92,892/- from various (twelve) dealers, declared as hawala operators by the Sales Tax Department. During assessment proceedings, the Assessing Officer (AO) issued notice under section 133(6) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’] to the dealers from whom the assessee had allegedly made purchases. The said notices were received back unserved from the postal authorities with remarks “Left or Not Known”. No confirmations from the vendors were filed by the assessee, no documentary evidence to substantiate trail of goods was furnished by the assessee. The AO made addition of the entire bogus purchases. Aggrieved by the assessment order dated 27.01.2016 passed under section 143(3) read with section 147 of the Act, the assessee filed appeal before the CIT(A). The CIT(A) after examining facts of the case and documents on record restricted the disallowance on bogus purchases to 12.5%. Now, the Revenue is in appeal against the relief granted by the CIT(A).
Sh. Sanjay J. Sethi representing the Department vehemently defended the assessment order and prayed for reversing the findings of CIT(A) in so far as granting partial relief to the assessee.
Submissions made by ld. Departmental Representative (DR) heard, orders of the authorities below examined. Undisputedly, the assessee failed to discharge its onus in proving genuineness of the purchases and the dealers. At the same time, it is observed that the sales declared by the assessee has not
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. Ut Corp vs. Union Of INDIARajasthan · 26 Oct 2026
- Sunrise Engineering vs. The State Of Andhra PradeshAndhra Pradesh · 26 Oct 2026
- M/S Kalra Traders vs. Union Of INDIAUttarakhand · 26 Oct 2026
- Ms Isoft vs. The Commissioner State TaxUttarakhand · 26 Oct 2026
- M/S Sita Enterprises vs. Office Of The CommissionerUttarakhand · 26 Oct 2026