ITO, 28(3)(4), MUMBAI vs. VIMAL BABULAL SHRIMAL, MUMBAI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 979/MUM/2019Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 July 2021AY 2009-107 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, finding no infirmity. The Revenue's appeal was dismissed as the CIT(A)'s findings were not controverted.

What were the facts?

The Assessing Officer (AO) added 100% of purchases amounting to Rs. 63,04,662/- as bogus purchases. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [CIT(A)] restricted this addition to 12.5% of the purchases, considering it as the profit element.

What were the issues?

Whether the entire amount of bogus purchases should be disallowed or only the profit element embedded therein, considering the assessee had shown corresponding sales.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 69C

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, “D” BENCH, MUMBAI

Before: SHRI MAHAVIR SINGH, VP & SHRI S. RIFAUR RAHMAN, AM

For Appellant: Shri Bharat Andhle, CIT DR
Hearing: 29.07.2021Pronounced: 29.07.2021

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.

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

2.

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?”

3.

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.

More judgments on Section 69C

All 8,217 judgments and leading authorities on Section 69C →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →