INCOME TAX OFFICER 15(1)(2), MUMBAI vs. M/S FAMOUS FASHION PVT LTD. ( EARLIEAR KNOW AS M/S KAMAT PRINTERS PVT LTD), MUMBAI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 5254/MUM/2019Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai01 July 2021AY 2011-123 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 decision to restrict the disallowance to 12.5%, finding it served the interest of justice. The assessee's cross-objection was dismissed due to delay.

What were the facts?

The Assessing Officer disallowed 100% of purchases based on information about hawala purchases. The CIT(A) restricted the disallowance to 12.5% based on a High Court decision.

What were the issues?

Whether the disallowance of purchases should be 100% or restricted, and the validity of reassessment proceedings.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 147,Section 143(3)

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, “SMC” Bench, Mumbai

For Respondent: Shri Anoop
Hearing: 17.05.2021Pronounced: 01.07.2021

Heard together (2 matters)

I.T.A. No. 5254/Mum/2019
C.O. No. 14/Mum/2021

Read from the judgment's own cause title. This page is filed under one of them.

O R D E R Per Shamim Yahya (AM) :- This appeal by the Revenue and cross objection by the assessee arise out of the order of learned CIT(A) dated 22.5.2019 pertains to A.Y. 2011-12.

Revenue’s appeal :

2 M/s. Famous Fashion Pvt. Ltd.

2.

The issue raised is that learned CIT(A) erred in restricting the disallowance to 12.5%.

3.

Brief facts are that the Assessing Officer disallowed 100% of purchases based upon information received from sales tax department that assessee has indulged in hawala purchase. The assessee provided the documentary evidence but Assessing Officer took adverse inference on assessee’s inability to produce the supplier.

4.

Upon assessee’s appeal learned CIT(A) restricted the disallowance to 12.5% based upon Hon'ble Gujarat High Court decision in Simit P. Seth [356 ITR 451].

5.

Against this order assessee is in appeal before us.

6.

We have heard learned Departmental Representative and perused the records. We find that 100% addition has been made by the Assessing Officer in the premise that the supplier has not been produced by the assessee. No defect in the voucher or books has been noted nor any doubt has been expressed on sale. In these circumstances in our considered opinion the disallowance sustained by learned CIT(A) serves the interest of justice. Accordingly, we uphold the same. The case law referred by the Revenue in grounds has been duly explained and distinguished by Hon'ble Bombay High Court in Mohd. Hazi Adam & Co. (ITA No. 1004 of 2006 dated 11.2.2019).

Assessee’s Cross objection :-

7.

Grounds of appeal read as under :

1.

On the facts and in the circumstance of the case and in law, the proceedings initiated u/s 147 of the act is invalid and bad in law and the CIT(A) erred in not dealing with this ground of appeal

2. On the facts and in the circumstance of the case and in law, the assessment order passed us 143(3) r.w.s. 147 of the act is invalid and bad in law and the CIT(A) erred in not dealing with this ground of appeal

3 M/s. Famous Fashion Pvt. Ltd.

3. On the facts and in the circumstance of the and in law, the learned CIT(A) erred in sustaining addition to extent of 12.5% of the so called bogus purchase addition of Rs.6,18,750/-

8.

At the outset it is noted that there is a delay of 48 days in filing the cross objection. The assessee has not filed any condonation request. Hence, this cross objection is not maintainable. Hence, the same is dismissed in limine.

9.

In the result, the Revenue’s appeal and assessee cross objection both are dismissed.

Pronounced in the open court on 1.7.2021.

More judgments on Section 147

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →