INCOME TAX OFFICER 32 (1) (4), MUMBAI vs. SHRI DEEPAK KANTILAL SHAH, MUMBAI

आअसं. 5790/मुं/2019 (िन.व.2011-12) (A.Y.2011-12) 2. Sh. Sanjay J. Sethi representing the Department submitted that during the period relevant to Assessment Year (AY) under appeal, the assessee had obtained bogus purchase bills amounting to Rs. 51,31,646/- from five dealers, declared as hawala operators by the Sales Tax Department, Government of Maharashtra. During assessment proceedings, the assessee neither produces the said dealers nor any confirmations from them were filed. No document was furnished by the assessee to prove trail of goods. Thus, the assessee failed to discharge his onus in proving authenticity of the dealers and the purchases made from suspicious dealers. The Assessing Officer (AO) after considering the entire facts estimated Gross Profit (GP) @ 12.5% on bogus purchases and made addition of Rs. 6,41,456/-. In first appellate proceedings, the CIT(A) restricted the addition to 8% of the bogus purchases. The ld. DR prayed for restoring the findings of AO.

Sh. Anil Thakrar appearing on behalf of the assessee submitted that the CIT(A) has restricted the addition to 8% by placing reliance on the order of Tribunal in assessee’s own case in and 2406/Mum/2017 for AY 2009-10 & 2010-11, respectively decided on 07.06.2017. The ld. Authorized Representative (AR) pointed that the nature of transactions and manner of disallowance in the impugned AY are identical. The ld. AR prayed for confirming the findings of CIT(A) and dismissing the appeal by Revenue.

Both sides heard, orders of authorities below examined. We find that the CIT(A) has restricted the disallowance in respect of bogus purchases to 8% by following the order of co-ordinate bench in assessee’s own case for preceding AYs in & 2406 /Mum/2017 (supra). Both sides are आअसं. 5790/मुं/2019 (िन.व.2011-12) (A.Y.2011-12) unanimous in stating that the facts in the impugned AY are identical to the facts in the preceding AYs adjudicated by the Tribunal. The CIT(A) has granted partial relief to the assessee by following the Tribunal order in assessee’s own case. We see no infirmity in the impugned order, hence, the same is upheld and appeal of the Revenue is dismissed, sans merit.