Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “D” BENCH, MUMBAI
Before: SHRI MAHAVIR SINGH, VP & SHRI S. RIFAUR RAHMAN, AM
O R D E R भहावीय स िंह, उऩाध्मक्ष के द्वाया / PER MAHAVIR SINGH, VP: This appeal of the Revenue is arising out of order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)]-26, Mumbai [in short CIT(A)], in Appeal No. CIT(A)-26/IT/338/2015-16 vide dated 14.12.2018. The Assessment was framed by the Income Tax Officer, Ward-28(3)(4), Mumbai (in short ACIT / AO) for the A.Y. 2009-10 vide order dated 05.01.2016 under section 143(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter ‘the Act’).
1. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in directing the A.O. to restrict the addition of bogus purchases to 12.5% as against 100% addition made by the Assessing officer on account bogus purchases without appreciating the fact that parties from whom those purchases were made proven accommodation entry providers as concluded by Sales Tax Authorities pursuant to the Investigation carried out by them
Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in not considering the latest Apex Court decision in the case of N. K. Proteins Ltd Vs. DCIT (769 of 2017), wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court has confirmed 100% addition made on account of bogus purchases?”
We have heard the rival contentions and gone through the facts and circumstances of the case. We noted that the assessee has taken accommodation bills from 15 parties amounting to Rs.63,04,662/-. The details of parties are given in assessment order Para 14.1 as under:-
Manav Impex 4,17,481 1. Ankit Enterprises 6,41,529 2.
“6.1 Ground Nos. 1 to 4 of the appeal are against addition of Rs.62,58,448/- as unexplained expenditure under section 69C of the Act. As per the investigations carried Aggrieved, now Revenue is in appeal before us.