Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Detected automatically from the text. The count shows how many other judgments on BharatTax rely on the same authority.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, MUMBAI BENCH “SMC”, MUMBAI
ITO -21(1)(4), Piramal Chambers, 1st Floor, Room No. 108, Lalbaug, Parel, Mumbai-400012 ...... अपीलाथ) /Appellant बनाम Vs. M/s Campbell Electronics Unit No. 9, Prabhadevi Indl. Estate, V.S. Marg, Prabhadevi, Mumbai-400025. PAN: AACFC4531G ..... *ितवाद,/Respondent अपीलाथ) -ारा/ Appellant by : Sh. Sushil Kumar Mishra *ितवाद, -ारा/Respondent by : None सुनवाई क. ितिथ/ Date of hearing : 30/03/2021 घोषणा क. ितिथ/ Date of pronouncement : 11/06/2021 आदेश/ ORDER PER VIKAS AWASTHY, J.M: This appeal by the Revenue is against the order of Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-33, Mumbai [hereinafter referred to as ‘the CIT(A)’]' dated 20.06.2019 for the Assessment Year (AY) 2009-10.
आअसं. 5511/मुं/2019 (िन.व.2009-10) (A.Y.2009-10)
The brief facts as emanating from records are: The assessee is a manufacturer and trader of Pharmaceutical testing equipments. The assessment for AY 2009-10 in the case of assessee was re-opened on the ground that the assessee has obtained bogus purchase bills amounting to Rs. 3,61,932/- from two entry providers i.e.
(i) M/s Hardik Metal Corporation Rs. 2,599/- (ii) Apple Steel Rs. 3,59,333/- Total Rs. 3,61,932/-
During assessment proceedings, the AO issued notice under section 133(6) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’] to the aforesaid dealers, however, the same were returned back unserved by the postal authorities. The AO made addition of entire alleged bogus purchases. Against the assessment order dated 03.11.2014 passed under section 143(3) read with section 147 of the Act, the assessee filed appeal before the CIT(A). The CIT(A) after examining the facts restricted the addition to 25% of the said bogus purchases.
Shri Sushil Kumar Mishra representing the Department vehemently defended the assessment order and prayed for 100% disallowance of bogus purchases. In support of his submissions, the ld. DR placed reliance on the decision of Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of N.K. Proteins Ltd. [84 taxmann.com 195].
Submissions made by ld. DR heard, orders of authorities below examined. Undisputedly, the assessee failed to discharge its onus in proving genuineness of the dealers from whom alleged bogus purchases were made
आअसं. 5511/मुं/2019 (िन.व.2009-10) (A.Y.2009-10) and the genuineness of the transactions. At the same time, the AO has accepted the sales turnover declared by the assessee. It is only the profit element embedded in such transaction that can be brought to tax, entire alleged bogus purchases cannot be added. [Re: PCIT vs. Paramshakti Distributors Pvt. Ltd. in of 2017 decided on 15.07.2019 by Hon’ble Bombay High Court].
I find no infirmity in the order of CIT(A) in restricting the disallowance on bogus purchases to 25%. Therefore, the impugned order is upheld and the appeal of Revenue is dismissed, sans merit.
Order pronounced in the open court on Friday, the 11th day of June, 2021. Sd/- (VIKAS AWASTHY) �याियक सद�य / JUDICIAL MEMBER मुंबई/Mumbai, 3दनांक/Dated: 11/06/2021 SK, PS *ितिल�प अ4े�षतCopy of the Order forwarded to : *ितिल�प अ4े�षत *ितिल�प अ4े�षत *ितिल�प अ4े�षत 1. अपीलाथ)/The Appellant , 2. *ितवाद,/ The Respondent. 3. आयकर आयु5(अ)/ The CIT(A)- 4. आयकर आयु5 CIT 5. �वभागीय *ितिनिध, आय.अपी.अिध., मुबंई/DR, ITAT, Mumbai 6. गाड9 फाइल/Guard file. BY ORDER, //True Copy//