Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, MUMBAI BENCH “SMC”, MUMBAI
Before: SHRI VIKAS AWASTHY
अपीलाथ) -ारा/ Appellant by : Ms. Smita Verma *ितवाद, -ारा/Respondent by : Ms. Ruchi Rathod सुनवाई क. ितिथ/ Date of hearing : 04 /05/2021 घोषणा क. ितिथ/ Date of pronouncement : 21/05/2021 आदेश/ ORDER PER VIKAS AWASTHY, J.M: 1. This appeal by the Revenue is directed against the order of Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-32, Mumbai [hereinafter referred to as ‘the CIT(A)’] dated 01.07.2019 for the Assessment Year (AY) 2010-11.
Ms. Ruchi Rathod appearing on behalf of the assessee submitted at the outset that the CIT(A) has granted relief to the assessee in respect of bogus purchases by following the order of Tribunal in assessee’s own case in ITA No.
आअसं. 6365/मुं/2019 (िन.व.2010-11) (A.Y.2010-11)
3608/Mum/2018 for Assessment Year (AY) 2009-10 decided on 23.04.2019. The Tribunal in identical set of facts in AY 2009-10 had restricted the addition in respect of alleged bogus purchases by reducing the Gross Profit (GP) rate already declared by the assessee from 12.5% GP estimated by the Assessing Officer. In the instant case, the CIT(A) has passed the impugned order in line with the order of Tribunal in assessee’s own case for AY 2009-10 (supra).
2. On the other hand, Ms. Smita Verma representing the Department strongly supported the assessment order and prayed for reversing the findings of CIT(A). However, ld. DR fairly admitted that in identical set of facts in asessee’s own case for AY 2009-10, the Tribunal has restricted the addition on account of bogus purchases to 12.5% minuus the GP already declared by the assessee on such purchases.
Both sides heard, orders of authorities below examined. The assessee has allegedly indulged in obtaining bogus purchase bills aggregating to Rs. 65,86,296/- from hawala operators. Since, the sales turnover declared by assessee was accepted by the AO, the entire purchases could not have been disallowed. The AO estimated GP @ 12.5% on bogus purchases and made addition of Rs. 8,23,287/-. In First Appellate Proceedings, the CIT(A) following the order of Tribunal in assessee’s own case in AY 2009-10 (supra) granted part relief to the assessee by reducing GP rate already declared by the assessee from GP rate estimated by the AO. Both sides are unanimous in stating that nature and manner of transactions in AY 2010-11 are identical to AY 2009-10.
आअसं. 6365/मुं/2019 (िन.व.2010-11) (A.Y.2010-11)
In the facts of case, I find no infirmity in the order of CIT(A). The impugned order is upheld and the appeal of Revenue is dismissed, sans merit.
Order pronounced in the open court on Friday, the 21st day of May, 2021.