ITO WARD 25(2(1), MUMBAI vs. V/S SMT. ANURADHA R DALMIA, MUMBAI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 4533/MUM/2019Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 April 2021AY 2010-113 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 upheld the CIT(A)'s order, finding that the assessee had discharged her onus by providing documentary evidence and the supplier's confirmation. The supplier's statement from a prior assessment year also supported the genuineness of the transactions.

What were the facts?

The Revenue appealed against the deletion of an addition made on account of bogus purchases. The assessee had obtained purchase bills from a declared hawala operator, and the Assessing Officer estimated profit on these purchases.

What were the issues?

Whether the assessee proved the genuineness of purchases from a supplier identified as a hawala operator, and if the CIT(A) was justified in deleting the addition.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 143(3),Section 147

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

Before: SHRI VIKAS AWASTHY

Hearing: 06/01/2021Pronounced: 05/04/2021

आदेश/ ORDER

1.

This Appeal by the Revenue is directed against the order of Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-18, Mumbai [in short ‘the CIT(A)] dated 26/04/2019 for the assessment year 2011-12.

2.

Shri Sanjay J. Sethi representing the department submitted that during the period relevant to assessment year under appeal, the assessee has obtained bogus purchase bills amounting to Rs.67,11,021/- from M/s. Arun Paper & Iron Traders a declared hawala operator by the Sales Tax Department, Government of आअसं. 4533/मुं/2019 (�न.व.2010-11) (A.Y.2010-11)

Maharashtra. During assessment proceedings, the assessee failed to prove genuineness of purchases and the dealer. Even the notice sent to dealer U/s. 133(6) of the Act by the Assessing Offer was returned back unserved. The Assessing Officer made addition by estimating profit embedded in bogus purchases as 25%. The assessee filed appeal against assessment order dated 19/09/2016 passed under section 143 (3) r.w.s. 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short ‘the Act’). The CIT(A) deleted the entire addition. The ld. Departmental Representative prayed for reversing the findings of CIT(A) and restoring the addition made in assessment order. To further buttress his submissions, the ld. Departmental Representative placed reliance on the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of N.K. Proteins Ltd. vs DCIT, 250 Taxman 22(SC).

3.

The submissions made by ld. Departmental Representative heard and orders of authorities below examined. The assessee is engaged in trading of craft paper. During the period relevant to assessment year under appeal, the assessee furnished various documents including confirmation from the supplier, purchase bills, bank statements, etc. to substantiate genuineness of purchases. The CIT(A) sought remand report from the Assessing Officer on the additional documents furnished by the assessee during first appellate stage. In remand report, the Assessing officer admitted that Sh. Arun Aggarwal, Prop. M/s. Arun Paper & Iron Traders has confirmed the sale of goods to the assessee and supported the same by ledger and bank statement. It is further observed that addition on account of bogus purchases from the same suppler was made in assessment year 2009-10. In assessment proceedings for AY 2009-10, Arun Aggarwal appeared before the Assessing Officer and his statement was recorded wherein he confirmed supply of material to the assessee in F.Y. 2008-09, 2009-10 and 2010-11. Considering the documentary evidence on record & the statement of the supplier, addition on account of bogus purchases in AY 2009-10 was deleted by the First Appellate Authority. In the आअसं. 4533/मुं/2019 (�न.व.2010-11) (A.Y.2010-11)

impugned assessment year as well, the nature of transaction and the supplier of goods is the same. The assessee has discharged her onus in proving genuineness of the purchases and the supplier of goods by placing on record relevant documentary evidence and the confirmation from the supplier. I see no infirmity in the impugned order, the same is upheld and the appeal by Revenue is dismissed, sans-merit.

4.

In the result, appeal by the Revenue is dismissed.

Order pronounced in the open Court on Monday, the 05th day of April, 2021.

Sd./- (VIKAS AWASTHY) �या�यक सद�य/JUDICIAL MEMBER मुंबई/Mumbai, �दनांक/Dated: 05/04/2021 Vm, Sr. PS (O/S)

More judgments on Section 147

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →