ACIT 26(2), MUMBAI vs. M/S RASA TECHNOLOGY, MUMBAI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 1123/MUM/2020Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 September 2021AY 2011-123 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 order, agreeing that only the profit element embedded in bogus purchases should be taxed. The Tribunal found the 12.5% rate to be reasonable.

What were the facts?

The AO made an addition of 100% of purchases to the assessee's income on the grounds of bogus purchases. The CIT(A) restricted this addition to 12.5% of the bogus purchases, following a High Court decision.

What were the issues?

Whether the entire amount of bogus purchases can be added to income, or only the profit element embedded therein.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 143(1),Section 148,Section 143(3),Section 147

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Cases cited in this judgment(1)Show list

Detected automatically from the text. Citations are also linked where they appear in the judgment. The count shows how many other judgments on BharatTax rely on the same authority.

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

Before: SHRI SAKTIJIT DEY & SHRI RAJESH KUMAR

For Respondent: Shri Bharat Andhale, D.R
Hearing: 08.09.2021Pronounced: 08.09.2021

Per Rajesh Kumar, Accountant Member:

1.

The present appeal has been preferred by the Revenue against the order dated 24.06.2019 of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [hereinafter referred to as the CIT(A)] relevant to assessment year 2011-12.

2.

At the time of hearing when the case was called for hearing, neither assessee nor his authorised representative was present to attend the hearing nor any application for adjournment was filed. Therefore, we are deciding the appeal of the Revenue after hearing the Ld. D.R. and after considering the merits of the case.

2 M/s. Rasa Technology 3. The only issue raised by the Revenue is against the order of Ld. CIT(A) restricting the addition to 12.5% of the bogus purchases as against 100% made by the AO.

4.

The facts in brief are that the assessee filed the return of income on 29.09.2011 declaring total income of Rs.24,67,504/- which was processed under section 143(1) of the Act. The case of the assessee was thereafter reopened by the AO after receipt of information from DGIT (Inv.), Mumbai that assessee is beneficiary of hawala purchase entries to the extent of Rs.7,71,775/- and accordingly the notice under section 148 of the Act was issued on 29.03.2018. The AO called for various details and information from the assessee from time to time during the course of assessment proceedings which were duly filed before the AO. The AO finally rejected the contentions of the assessee and treated the purchases as non genuine thereby making an addition of Rs.58,79,880/-, being 100% of the purchases, to the income of the assessee by framing assessment under section 143(3) read with section 147 of the Act dated 26.12.2018.

5.

In the appellate proceedings, the Ld. CIT(A) partly allowed the appeal of the assessee by directing the AO to apply rate of 12.5% of the bogus purchases by following the decision of CIT vs. Simit P. Sheth (2013) 356 ITR 451 (Guj) by holding that only profit embedded in the bogus purchases can be brought to tax and not the entire purchases.

6.

After hearing the Ld. D.R. and perusing the material on record, we observe that Ld. CIT(A) has passed the appellate

3 M/s. Rasa Technology order after following the decision of Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in the case of CIT vs. Simit P. Sheth (supra) wherein it has been held that in case of bogus purchases only profit element embedded in the bogus purchases is to be assessed. We note that the co-ordinate benches of the Tribunal have been taking a consistent view that in case of bogus purchases only a GP rate ranging between 2% to 12.5% whereas the Ld. CIT(A) has directed to assess the income @ 12.5% which is quite reasonable and therefore we do not find any reason why the Revenue is aggrieved by this order. Accordingly, we uphold the order of the ld CIT(A) by dismissing the appeal of the Revenue.

7.

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed.

Order pronounced in the open court on 08.09.2021.

More judgments on Section 148

All 35,022 judgments and leading authorities on Section 148 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →