ITO 24 (1)(5), MUMBAI vs. SHRI. DEVDAS MANJAYYA SHERUGAR, 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 held that since the sales turnover was not in doubt and payments were made through banking channels, it was a fit case to estimate the profit element. The CIT(A)'s estimation of 25% addition was considered sufficient to cover revenue leakage.
What were the facts?
The assessee, engaged in manufacturing engineering goods, was assessed for alleged bogus purchases of Rs. 52.00 Lacs. Despite providing purchase bills and bank statements, the suppliers could not be produced for confirmation.
What were the issues?
Whether the disallowance of purchases should be 100% or estimated, and if an estimation is permissible, what percentage is appropriate.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Cases cited in this judgment(1)Show listHide 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.
- CIT v. Simit P. Sheth1,465 citing356 ITR 451 · 2013 · HC
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “D” BENCH, MUMBAI
Before: HON’BLE SHRI MAHAVIR SINGH, VP & HON’BLE SHRI MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL, AM
आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण “डी” "ायपीठ मुंबई म"। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “D” BENCH, MUMBAI माननीय "ी महावीर िसंह, उपा"" एवं माननीय "ी मनोज कुमार अ"वाल ,लेखा सद" के सम"। BEFORE HON’BLE SHRI MAHAVIR SINGH, VP AND HON’BLE SHRI MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL, AM (Hearing Through Video Conferencing Mode) आयकर अपील सं./ (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2010-11) ITO-24(1)(5) Shri Devdas Manjayya Sehrugar बनाम/ 607, Piramal Chambers Gala No.9, Ark Ind. Premises CSL Jeejeebhoy Lane, Lalbaug Makwana Road, Andheri East Vs. Mumbai – 400 012 Mumbai – 400 059 PAN No. : AAYPS-4717-Q (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" / Respondent) : Assessee by : None Revenue by : Shri Rajendra Joshi– Ld. Sr. DR सुनवाई की तारीख/ : 25/05/2021 Date of Hearing घोषणा की तारीख / : 01/06/2021 Date of Pronouncement आदेश / O R D E R Manoj Kumar Aggarwal (Accountant Member)
Aforesaid appeal by revenue for Assessment year [AY in short] 2010-11 contest the order of Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-36, Mumbai [in short CIT(A) ] dated 26/08/2019 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 engineering goods consisting of molds, dies etc. was assessed for the year under consideration u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 147 on 26/02/2016. 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.52.00 Lacs from nine entities as detailed in the assessment order. Accordingly, the case was reopened as per due process of law and the assessee was required to file requisite details to substantiate the purchases. 3.2 In support of purchases, the assessee furnished copies of purchase bills, monthly details of sale & purchase along with bank statements evidencing payment through banking channels. However, notices issued u/s 133(6) did not elicit satisfactory response. The assessee could not produce any of the suppliers for confirmation of transactions. The Ld. AO, after considering entire factual matrix as well as in the background of various judicial pronouncements, made aggregate disallowance of Rs.41.34 Lacs which has been worked out in para-13 of the order. The disallowance was made @100% against 8 parties whereas the disallowance against one party was estimated @25%. In the alternative, Ld. AO proposed disallowance of Rs.34.21 Lacs u/s 40(A)(3) which represent purchases made from seven entities since the assessee would have made payment out of sources best known to him.
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 →- Sureshchandra Moolchand Shah vs. State Of GujaratGujarat · 27 Oct 2026
- 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