MOHD. MAROFF ALAM,MUMBAI vs. ITO 21(2)(3), MUMBAI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 2550/MUM/2019Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 April 2021AY 2011-123 pages
AI SummaryPartly Allowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal directed the Assessing Officer to estimate an addition of 15% on the suspicious purchases, amounting to Rs. 1,25,997/-, and deleted the balance addition. This was based on similar additions made in previous assessment years.

What were the facts?

The assessee was assessed for alleged bogus purchases of Rs. 8.39 Lacs from two parties. The assessment was framed under Section 144 read with Section 147 as the assessee failed to respond to notices and provide evidence for the purchases.

What were the issues?

The primary issue was the validity of additions made on account of alleged bogus purchases and the extent of disallowance for such purchases.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 144,Section 147

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “SMC” BENCH, MUMBAI

Before: HON’BLE SHRI SAKTIJIT DEY, JM & HON’BLE SHRI MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL, AM

For Appellant: Shri Nawaz Haindaday-Ld. AR
For Respondent: Ms. Smita Verma – Ld. Sr. DR

आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण “एक-सदस्य मामला” न्यायपीठ म ुंबई में। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “SMC” BENCH, MUMBAI माननीय श्री शक्तिजीत दे, न्याययक सदस्य एवुं माननीय श्री मनोज कुमार अग्रवाल ,लेखा सदस्य के समक्ष। BEFORE HON’BLE SHRI SAKTIJIT DEY, JM AND HON’BLE SHRI MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL, AM (Hearing Through Video Conferencing Mode) आयकरअपील सं./ (धििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2011-12) Mohd. Maroof Alam ITO-21(2)(3) 10th Floor, Pratishtha Bhavan 381, Italian Building बिाम/ Room No.20, 1st Floor Churchgate, M.K. Road Vs. Ghas Gali, Agripada Mumbai-400 020. Mumbai – 400 011. स्थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./PAN/GIR No. AHAPA-4187-H (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) : Assessee by : Shri Nawaz Haindaday-Ld. AR Revenue by : Ms. Smita Verma – Ld. Sr. DR सुनवाई की तारीख/ : 23/03/2021 Date of Hearing घोषणा की तारीख / 05/04/2021 : Date of Pronouncement आदेश / O R D E R Per Manoj Kumar Aggarwal (Accountant Member)

1.

In the aforesaid appeal for Assessment Year 2011-12, the assessee is aggrieved by confirmation of certain additions on account of alleged bogus purchases vide order dated 30/01/2019 passed by Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-48,Mumbai [CIT(A)].

2.

We have carefully heard the rival submissions and perused relevant material on record. Our adjudication to the subject matter of appeal would be as given in succeeding paragraphs.

3.1 The material facts are that the assessee being resident individual stated to be engaged in trading of hardware items was assessed for the year u/s 144 r.w.s. 147 on 09/11/2016. The assessment was so framed pursuant to receipt of certain information from Sales Tax Department that the assessee procured accommodation purchase bills of Rs.8.39 Lacs from 2 parties as detailed in the assessment order. Accordingly, notice u/s 148 was issued on 18/03/2016. However, the same remained un-responded to by the assessee which led Ld. AO to frame assessment on best-judgment basis u/s 144. 3.2 Since the assessee failed to adduce any evidence in support of purchase transactions, the purchases were disallowed and added back to the income of the assessee.

4.

Before Ld. CIT(A), the assessee chose to file written submissions which are extracted in the impugned order. The assessee also challenged the validity of assessment proceeding. However, it was noted by Ld. CIT(A) that the assessee could not substantiate the grounds of appeal

. No documents could be submitted by the assessee during assessment as well as during appellate proceedings. Therefore, the assessee was not interested in prosecuting the appeal. Finally, the appeal was dismissed. Aggrieved, the assessee is in further appeal before us.

5. Upon perusal of material on record, we find that the assessee had made similar suspicious purchases in AY 2009-10 and an assessment was framed against the assessee u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 147 on 18/03/2015. The Ld. AO estimated an addition of 15% in that year. Similarly, in AY 2010-11, Ld. AO made estimated additions of 12.5% against suspicious purchases. Apparently, there is no change in business of the assessee and material facts are pari-materia the same. Therefore, to put an end to the dispute, we direct Ld. AO to estimate an addition of 15% against purchases of Rs.8,39,980/- made by the assessee in this year which comes to Rs.1,25,997/-. The balance addition stand deleted. No other ground has been urged before us.

6. The appeal stands partly allowed in terms of our above order. Order pronounced on 5th April, 2021.

More judgments on Section 147

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →