ITO- 13(2)(3), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. M/S. SHREE GIRIRAJ FERROMET PVT. LTD., MUMBAI
In favour of the assessee: the Revenue's appeal was dismissed. From the AI summary of this appeal.
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal found no infirmity in the estimation made by the CIT(A) as it was in line with the estimation made in the earlier year and confirmed by the Tribunal. The estimation of 7% was considered fair and reasonable.
What were the facts?
The assessee made suspicious purchases of Rs. 62.66 Lacs from a supplier. The assessee failed to produce the supplier for confirmation and claimed the goods were returned in a subsequent year. The Assessing Officer (AO) estimated an addition of 12.5% on these purchases.
What were the issues?
Whether the estimation of addition on account of bogus purchases made by the AO was justified, and if the reduction by the CIT(A) was appropriate.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “SMC” BENCH, MUMBAI
Before: HON’BLE SHRI AMARJIT SINGH, JM & HON’BLE SHRI MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL, AM
आदेश / O R D E R Manoj Kumar Aggarwal (Accountant Member)
Aforesaid appeal by Revenue for AY 2010-11 contest the order of Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-21 Mumbai [CIT(A)] dated 28/06/2019 which has granted partial relief to the assessee on account of alleged bogus purchases.
At the time of hearing, none appeared for assessee. However, the material on record was sufficient for disposal of the appeal. The Ld. DR pleaded for restoration of assessment as framed by Ld. AO u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 147 on 22/12/2017. The assessee being resident corporate assessee is stated to be engaged in trading of iron & steel. 3. The material facts are that during the course of assessment proceedings, pursuant to receipt of certain information from Sales Tax Department, Maharashtra, it transpired that the assessee made suspicious purchases of Rs.62.66 Lacs from an entity namely M/s Shree Ram Steel. The assessee failed to produce the supplier for confirmation of transaction. The assessee, in support of purchase transactions, furnished copy of purchase invoices and ledger extracts. The assessee also submitted that the goods purchased from the said supplier were rejected and returned back in subsequent year. However, finding that the assessee could not discharg the primary onus of substantiating the purchases, Ld. AO estimated on addition of 12.5% against these purchases. 4. The Ld. CIT(A) observed that the issue of bogus purchases was recurring in nature and in AY 2009-10, the addition was estimated @4% during appellate proceedings. The appellate order was subsequently confirmed by Tribunal. Therefore, considering the Gross Profit Rate of 3.90% and considering the fact that VAT rate on iron & steel was 4%, the estimation of 12.5% was on the higher side. The same was, accordingly, reduced to 7%. Aggrieved, the revenue is in further appeal before us. 5. Going by the factual matrix, we find no infirmity in the estimation made by Ld. CIT(A) since the same was in line with estimation made in earlier year. The appellate order for AY 2009-10 was confirmed by Tribunal. The assessee reflected GP rate of 3.90% during the year. Considering all these facts, the estimation of 7% was quite fair & reasonable. By confirming the same, we dismiss the appeal. 6. The appeal stands dismissed.
Order pronounced on 05th July, 2021. Sd/- Sd/- (Amarjit Singh) (Manoj Kumar Aggarwal) �ाियक सद� / Judicial Member लेखा सद� / Accountant Member मुंबई Mumbai; िदनांक Dated : 05/07/2021 Sr.PS, Jaisy Varghese आदेशकी�ितिलिपअ�ेिषत/Copy of the Order forwarded to : अपीलाथ�/ The Appellant 1. ��थ�/ The Respondent 2. आयकरआयु�(अपील) / The CIT(A) 3. आयकरआयु�/ CIT– concerned 4. िवभागीय�ितिनिध, आयकरअपीलीयअिधकरण, मुंबई/ DR, ITAT, Mumbai 5. गाड�फाईल / Guard File 6.
More judgments on Section 147
- ACIT Central Bilaspur, Bilaspur vs Arun Kumar Agrawal, SaktiITSSA 26/RPR/2025[2018-19]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2018-19
- Vinod Agrawal, Kawardha vs Assisstant Commissioner of Income Tax…ITA 666/RPR/2026[2019-20]Status: Heard21 Oct 2026AY 2019-20
- Sar Business Tradelink Private Limited… vs Income Tax Officer, Ward - 1(2), RaipurITA 599/RPR/2026[2014-15]Status: Heard21 Oct 2026AY 2014-15
- Tarunaben Maganlal Bhut, Navagam vs ITO Ward 2(2)(1), RajkotITA 673/RJT/2026[2024-25]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2024-25
- Neo Incorporation, Rajkot vs DCIT Circle- 1(2), RajkotITA 471/RJT/2026[2012-2013]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2012-2013
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- M/S Larsen And Toubro Limited vs. Joint Commissioner Of Central GST And Anr.Delhi · 27 Oct 2026
- T C Global INDIA Private Limited vs. Principal Commissioner Of Central GST, North DelhiDelhi · 27 Oct 2026
- Kamlasana Impex Private Limited vs. Director General Of GST Intelligence (Hq) Delhi) & Anr.Delhi · 27 Oct 2026
- Ritu Gautam Proprietor Of Ms Heritage International vs. Additional Commissioner Central Goods And Services Tax Appeals Ii Delhi & Anr.Delhi · 27 Oct 2026
- Sutha vs. The State Tax Officer(Inspection-3)Madras · 27 Oct 2026