ITO WARD 1 (1), THANE vs. M/S NEXGEN PLASTIC & METAL COMPONENTS, THANE
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 agreed with the CIT(A) that estimating profit on suspicious purchases was appropriate, especially since the sales were not in doubt. The 12.5% estimation was considered fair and reasonable.
What were the facts?
The assessee firm was found to have made purchases from suspicious dealers based on information from the Sales Tax Department. The Assessing Officer disallowed these purchases entirely, but the CIT(A) restricted the addition to 12.5% of the purchase value.
What were the issues?
Whether the entire disallowance of purchases was justified, or if estimating profit on such purchases was a more appropriate course of action.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
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
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./ & 5573/Mum/2019 (धििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Years: 2010-11 & 2011-12) ITO-Ward-1(1),Thane M/s. Nexgen Plastic & Metal Components Room No.23, B-Wing, 6th Floor बिाम/ 41, Avanti Vihar CHS, Aptewadi Ashar IT Park, Wagle Indl. Estate Shirgaon, Badlapur(E) Vs. Road No.16Z, Thane – 400 604 Mumbai – 421 503. स्थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./PAN/GIR No. AAFFN-9384-F (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / 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)
Aforesaid appeals by revenue for Assessment years [AY in short] 2010-11 and 2011-12 contest common order of ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-1, Thane [in short CIT(A) ] which has restricted the addition on account of suspicious purchases as against full addition made by Ld. AO.
Though none appeared for assessee, however, material on record was sufficient for disposal of the appeals. The Ld. DR pleaded for restoration of assessment framed by Ld. AO. 3.1 The material facts are that the assessee being resident firm stated to be engaged in manufacturing of plastic and metal components has been assessed, in similar manner, for both the years u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 147 on 28/08/2014. The assessment was so framed pursuant to receipt of certain information from Sales Tax Department that the assessee procured accommodation purchase bills from suspicious dealers. The assessee made purchase of Rs.2.62 Lacs from 2 parties in AY 2010-11 as detailed in the assessment order. The quantum of purchase in AY 2011-12 is Rs.3.12 Lacs. 3.2 Though the assessee filed certain documentary evidences in support of purchases, however, notices issued u/s 133(6) did not elicit any satisfactory response. Consequently, these purchases were disallowed and added back to assessee’s income in both the years. 4. Upon further appeal, Ld. CIT(A) noted that the assessee produced copies of bills, bank statements and ledger extracts of the suppliers. However, the claim that the purchases were genuine could not be accepted in totality in view of the investigation carried out by sales tax authorities. Accordingly, the profit attributable to these transactions was to be brought to tax. The estimation was done at 12.5% for both the years which has given rise to revenue’s appeals before us. 5. Going by the material on record and after due consideration of factual matrix, we find that the issue rightly been clinched in proper perspective by Ld. CIT(A). Since the sales were not in doubt, it was a fit case to estimate the profit element embedded in these transactions. The estimation of 12.5% was quite fair and reasonable. Concurring with findings of Ld. CIT(A) in the impugned order, we dismiss both the appeals. 6. Both the appeals stands dismissed. Order pronounced on 5th April, 2021.
Sd/- Sd/- (Saktijit Dey) (Manoj Kumar Aggarwal) न्याययक सदस्य / Judicial Member लेखा सदस्य / Accountant Member मुंबई Mumbai; यदनांक Dated : 05/04/2021 Sr.PS, Jaisy Varghese आदेशकीप्रधिधलधपअग्रेधर्ि/Copy of the Order forwarded to : 1. अपीलाथी/ The Appellant 2. प्रत्यथी/ The Respondent 3. आयकरआयुि(अपील) / The CIT(A) 4. आयकरआयुि/ CIT– concerned 5. यवभागीयप्रयतयनयध, आयकरअपीलीयअयधकरण, मुंबई/ DR, ITAT, Mumbai 6. गार्डफाईल / Guard File आदेशाि सार/ BY ORDER,
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 →- M/S.Sri Satya Sai Constructions vs. The State Of Andhra PradeshAndhra Pradesh · 27 Oct 2026
- M/S. Sikka Motors PVT LTD vs. Union Of INDIA & Anr.Delhi · 27 Oct 2026
- Shri Yaras Suresh Babu Prabhu Kumar vs. The Union Of INDIATelangana · 27 Oct 2026
- Santa Singh vs. SuperintendentUttarakhand · 27 Oct 2026
- Azaad Builders vs. Assistant Commissioner SGSTUttarakhand · 27 Oct 2026