SAHABULLAH MOHD. SHARIF KHAN,MUMBAI vs. ITO 20(3)(2), MUMBAI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 7351/MUM/2019Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai02 September 2021AY 2009-103 pages

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

AI SummaryDismissed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal found that the addition of 5% made by the CIT(A) was fair and reasonable considering the nature of the business and the factual matrix of the case. Therefore, no interference was required.

What were the facts?

The assessee, an iron and steel dealer, was alleged to have made suspicious purchases. The Assessing Officer reopened the assessment and made an addition of 12.5% on account of bogus purchases as suppliers were not found at their given addresses.

What were the issues?

The primary issue was the validity and quantum of addition made on account of alleged bogus purchases from non-existent suppliers.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 143(3),Section 147

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “SMC” BENCH, MUMBAI

Before: HON’BLE SHRI C.N. PRASAD, JM & HON’BLE SHRI MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL, AM

For Respondent: Shri Sanjay J. Sethi- Ld. Sr.DR

Manoj Kumar Aggarwal (Accountant Member)

1.

Aforesaid appeal by assessee for AY 2009-10 arises out of the order of Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-32 Mumbai [CIT(A)] dated 28/08/2019 in the matter of assessment framed by Ld. Assessing Officer (AO) u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 147 on 27/03/2015. The sole subject matter of appeal is estimation of addition on account of alleged bogus purchases. The assessee being resident individual is stated to be engaged as iron and steel dealer under proprietorship concern namely M/s Sagar Tubes Steel.

2.

At the time of hearing, none appeared for assessee. However, the material on record was sufficient for disposal of the appeal. The Ld. Sr. DR pleaded for dismissal of the appeal.

3.

Upon perusal of assessment order, it could be seen that the case was reopened pursuant to receipt of certain information from Sales Tax Department, Maharashtra on the basis of which it was alleged that the assessee made suspicious purchases of Rs.117.51 Lacs from 4 entities as detailed in para 3 of the order. Though the assessee furnished purchase bills, however, noticing that the suppliers were not found at the given addresses, Ld. AO estimated addition of 12.5%.

4.

The Ld. CIT(A), while confirming the stand of Ld. AO, noted that the assessee had reflected Gross Profit Rate of 14.62% and considering assessee’s nature of business, the addition of 5% would be fair and reasonable. Still aggrieved, the assessee is in further appeal before us.

5.

Upon perusal of impugned order, we find that Ld. CIT(A) has passed a well reasoned and speaking order after considering factual matrix of the case. The estimation of 5% in steel business was quite fair and reasonable which would not require any interference on our part.

6.

The appeal stand dismissed. Order pronounced on 02nd September, 2021. (C. N. Prasad) (Manoj Kumar Aggarwal) न्याययक सदस्य / Judicial Member लेखा सदस्य / Accountant Member मुंबई Mumbai; यदनांक Dated : 02/09/2021 Sr.PS, Dhananjay

आदेशकीप्रधिधलधपअग्रेधर्ि/Copy of the Order forwarded to : 1. अपीलाथी/ The Appellant 2. प्रत्यथी/ The Respondent आयकरआयुक्त(अपील) / The CIT(A) 3. 4. आयकरआयुक्त/ CIT– concerned 5. यवभागीयप्रयतयनयध, आयकरअपीलीयअयधकरण, मुंबई/ DR, ITAT, Mumbai 6. गार्डफाईल / Guard File

आदेशाि सार/ BY ORDER,

उप/सहायक पुंजीकार (Dy./Asstt.

More judgments on Section 147

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →