ITO-22(1)(5), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. SHRI GOKUL GOVIND SANDHA, MUMBAI

Aforesaid appeal by revenue for Assessment year [AY in short] 2011- 12 contest the order of Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-55, Mumbai [in short CIT(A) ] dated 20/06/2019 which has provided certain relief to the assessee on account of alleged bogus purchases.

Though none appeared for assessee, however, material on record was sufficient for disposal of the appeal. The Ld. DR pleaded for restoration of assessment framed by Ld. AO. 3.1 The material facts are that the assessee being resident individual stated to be engaged in manufacturing of garments was assessed for the year under consideration u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 147 on 30/11/2015. The original return filed by assessee was processed u/s 143(1). However, pursuant to receipt of certain information from DGIT (Inv.) / Sales Tax Department, Mumbai, it transpired that the assessee made alleged bogus purchases of Rs.25,200/- from an entity namely M/s Shivraj Traders. Accordingly, the case was reopened as per due process of law and the assessee was required to file requisite details to substantiate these purchases. 3.2 In support of purchases, the assessee furnished certain documents, however, the notice issued u/s 133(6) to the supplier did not elicit any satisfactory response. Consequently, Ld. AO disallowed these purchases. 4. The Ld. CIT(A), considering assessee’s submissions as well as documentary evidences, restricted the additions to 12.5%. Aggrieved, the revenue is in further appeal before us. 5. Going by the factual matrix as enumerated in the orders of lower authorities, we find that assessee’s Sales Turnover was not in doubt and the assessee was in possession of primary purchase documents. The payment to the supplier was through banking channels. There could be no sale without actual purchase of material keeping in view the assessee’s nature of business. The facts of the case made it a fit case to estimate the profit element embedded in these transactions. The Ld. CIT(A), after due consideration of assessee’s submissions, estimated the additions @12.5% which is more than enough to take care of the leakage of revenue. Therefore, the estimation could not be termed as unjustified, in any manner. Finding no reason to interfere in the impugned order, we dismiss the appeal. The appeal stands dismissed. 6. Order pronounced on 10th June, 2021.