ACIT 21 (1), MUMBAI vs. ANJANEYULU BACHAIH PERNE, MUMBAI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 5563/MUM/2019Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 April 2021AY 2009-103 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 agreed with the CIT(A) that since the sales turnover was not in doubt and the assessee had primary purchase documents, the profit element embedded in the transactions should be taxed. The CIT(A) had estimated the profit at 25%.

What were the facts?

The assessee was assessed for alleged bogus purchases of Rs. 4.73 Lacs. Although the assessee provided some evidence and payments were made through banking channels, they failed to prove the correlation of purchases with sales or provide a stock register.

What were the issues?

Whether the disallowance of purchases was justified, and if not, what was the appropriate method to tax the profit element of such transactions.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 143(3),Section 147,Section 148,Section 142(1)

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 Respondent: Ms. Smita Verma – Ld. Sr. DR

आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण “एक-सद� मामला” �ायपीठ मुंबई म�। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “SMC” BENCH, MUMBAI माननीय �ी श��जीत दे, �ाियक सद� एवं माननीय �ी मनोज कुमार अ�वाल ,लेखा सद� के सम�। BEFORE HON’BLE SHRI SAKTIJIT DEY, JM AND HON’BLE SHRI MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL, AM (Hearing Through Video Conferencing Mode) आयकरअपील सं./ (िनधा�रण वष� / Assessment Year: 2009-10) ACIT-21(1) Anjaneyulu Bachaiah Perne Room No.116, 1st Floor Plot No.930, Office No.2G बनाम/ Piramal Chambers, Parel Prabhat CH Soc. ,Off Sayani Road, Vs. Mumbai – 400 012. Opp. Ravindra Natya Mandir Mumbai – 400 025. �थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./PAN/GIR No. AACPP-0975-B (अपीलाथ�/Appellant) (��थ� / Respondent) : Assessee by : None Revenue by : Ms. Smita Verma – Ld. Sr. DR सुनवाई की तारीख/ : 24/03/2021 Date of Hearing घोषणा की तारीख / : 05/04/2021 Date of Pronouncement आदेश / O R D E R Manoj Kumar Aggarwal (Accountant Member)

1.

Aforesaid appeal by revenue for Assessment Year (AY) 2009-10 contests the order of learned first appellate authority dated 13/06/2019 which has provided certain relief to the assessee on account of alleged bogus purchases.

2.

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 that the assessee being resident individual stated to be engaged in civil work was assessed u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 147 on 16/03/2015. The assessment was so framed pursuant to receipt of certain information from Sales Tax Department that the assessee procured accommodation purchase bills of Rs.4.73 Lacs from 2 parties as detailed in the assessment order. Accordingly, notice u/s 148 was issued on 18/03/2014 which was followed by statutory notices u/s 143(2) & 142(1) calling for requisite details from assessee to substantiate the purchases so made. 3.2 Though the assessee filed certain documentary evidences in support of purchases, however, the assessee could not prove the correlation of the sales with the purchases. No stock register could be produced. Consequently, the purchases were disallowed and added back to assessee’s income.

4.

Upon further appeal, Ld. CIT(A), inter-alia, noted that the sales were not under doubt and therefore, the profit embedded in these transactions was to be brought to tax. The estimation was made at 25%. 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 the issue has rightly been clinched in proper perspective by Ld. CIT(A). The Sales Turnover was not in doubt and the assessee was in possession of primary purchase documents. The payment to the suppliers was through banking channels. The facts of the case made it a fit case to estimate the profit element embedded in these transactions. Concurring with findings of Ld. CIT(A) in the impugned order, we dismiss the appeal.

6.

The appeal stands dismissed. Order pronounced on 05th April, 2021 Sd/- Sd/- (Saktijit Dey) (Manoj Kumar Aggarwal) �ाियक सद� / Judicial Member लेखा सद� / Accountant Member मुंबई Mumbai; िदनांक Dated : Sr.PS, Jaisy Varghese आदेशकी�ितिलिपअ�ेिषत/Copy of the Order forwarded to : 1. अपीलाथ�/ The Appellant 2. ��थ�/ The Respondent 3. आयकरआयु�(अपील) / The CIT(A) 4. आयकरआयु�/ CIT– concerned 5. िवभागीय�ितिनिध, आयकरअपीलीयअिधकरण, मुंबई/ DR, ITAT, Mumbai 6. गाड�फाईल / Guard File आदेशानुसार/ BY ORDER,

More judgments on Section 147

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →