ITO 21(1)(4), MUMBAI vs. M/S CAMPBELL ELECTRONICS, MUMBAI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 5511/MUM/2019Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 June 2021AY 2009-103 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 held that while the assessee failed to prove the genuineness of the dealers and transactions, only the profit element embedded in such transactions can be brought to tax, not the entire alleged bogus purchases. The CIT(A)'s restriction of addition to 25% was upheld.

What were the facts?

The Revenue appealed against the CIT(A)'s order concerning assessment year 2009-10. The assessee was found to have obtained bogus purchase bills amounting to Rs. 3,61,932/- from two entry providers.

What were the issues?

Whether the entire amount of alleged bogus purchases should be disallowed or only the profit element embedded therein, when the assessee fails to prove the genuineness of the transactions.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 143(3),Section 147,Section 133(6)

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, MUMBAI BENCH “SMC”, MUMBAI

Hearing: 30/03/2021Pronounced: 11/06/2021

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)

2.

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/-

3.

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.

4.

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].

5.

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].

6.

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//

More judgments on Section 147

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →