ITO 15 (3)(3), MUMBAI vs. M/S S K MECHANICAL & ELECTRICAL WORKS PVT LTD., MUMBAI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 485/MUM/2020Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 September 2021AY 2010-113 pages

In favour of the assessee: the Revenue's appeal was dismissed. From the AI summary of this appeal.

AI SummaryDismissed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to restrict the disallowance to 25% of the alleged bogus purchases. The Tribunal found no infirmity in the CIT(A)'s order, considering the AO had accepted the assessee's turnover.

What were the facts?

The Assessing Officer reopened the assessment based on alleged bogus purchase bills from hawala dealers. The assessee did not appear, leading to an assessment under Section 144. The AO disallowed 50% of unproved purchases.

What were the issues?

Whether the disallowance of bogus purchases was excessive and if the CIT(A) rightly restricted it to 25%.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 144,Section 147

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, MUMBAI BENCH “SMC”, MUMBAI

Hearing: 30/06/2021Pronounced: 20/09/2021

ORDER PER VIKAS AWASTHY, J.M: This appeal by the Revenue is directed against the order of Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-24, Mumbai [hereinafter referred to as ‘the CIT(A)’] dated 23.10.2019 for the Assessment Years (AY) 2010-11. 2. The brief facts of the case as emanating from records are: The assessee/respondent is in the business of undertaking mechanical works. The assessment for Assessment Year (AY) 2010-11 in the case of assessee was re- आअसं. 485/मुं/2020 (िन.व.2010-11 ) (A.Y. 2010-11) opened on the ground that the assessee has indulged in obtaining bogus purchase bills from various (six) hawala dealers during the period relevant to assessment year under appeal. During assessment proceedings, there was no representation from assessee’s side, despite repeated notices, therefore, the Assessing Officer (AO) invoked provisions of section 144 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’] and completed the assessment. Since, genuineness of the purchases and the dealers were not proved, the AO disallowed 50% of the total unproved purchases and made addition of Rs. 25,11,431/- . Against the assessment order dated 20.12.2017 passed under section 144 r.w. sec. 147 of the Act, the assessee filed appeal before the CIT(A). The CIT(A) after examining the facts and documents on record granted part relief to the assessee by restricting disallowance to 25% of the alleged bogus purchases. Now, the Revenue is in appeal against the relief granted by the CIT(A).

3.

Sh. Sanjay J. Sethi representing the Department vehemently defended the assessment order. The ld. DR submitted that despite several notices, the assessee failed to appear before the AO, hence, the AO was constrained to complete assessment under section 144 of the Act. Even before the CIT(A), initially the assessee was non co-operative and did not comply with the notice. The assessee has failed to substantiate genuineness of the dealers and the purchases made from them. The ld. AR prayed for reversing the findings of CIT(A) and upholding the assessment order.

4.

Submissions made by ld. DR heard, orders of the authorities below examined. Undisputedly, the assessee failed to prove authenticity of the dealers and purchases made from the said dealers. At the same time, it is

More judgments on Section 147

All 49,210 judgments and leading authorities on Section 147 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →