Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “C” BENCH, MUMBAI
O R D E R Per Mahavir Singh, VP: This appeal by the Revenue is arising out of the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-12, Mumbai (‘CIT(A)’ for short) in appeal no. CIT(A)-12/DCIT- 6(2)(1)/57/2016-17 vide order dated 15.05.2019. The assessment was framed by the DCIT, Circle-6(2)(1), Mumbai u/s. 143(3) r.w.s 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘the Act’ hereinafter) for the assessment year (A.Y.) 2010-11 vide his order dated 23.03.2016.
The only issue in this appeal of the Revenue is against the order of the ld. CIT(A) restricting the disallowance of bogus purchase at 12.5%. For this, the Revenue has raised the various grounds, which we need not reproduce for the sake of brevity.
We have heard the rival contentions and gone through the facts and circumstances of the case. We note that the Assessing Officer (A.O. for short) during the course of assessment proceedings noticed that the assessee has debited bogus purchases of Rs.8,38,703/- from the following hawala parties:
(AY:2010-11) Asst. CIT vs. M/s. Catwalk World Wide Pvt. Ltd. Sr. Name of the PAN Amount of the bogus No. assessee purchases (Rs.) 1 Kwality Enterprises AAAPZ 0527 H 2,25,427 2 Naina Impex CDKPS 9910 A 2,44,63 3 Karmic Trading Co. ASFPK 2629 G 3,68,639 Total 8,38,703
As the amount of Rs.2,25,427/- in the case of Kwality Enterprises was added back, vide the assessment order dated 18.03.2013, this amount was not added and the balance amount of Rs.6,13,276/- was added as bogus purchases.
Aggrieved, the assessee preferred an appeal before the ld.CIT(A). The ld. CIT(A) restricted the disallowance of bogus purchase at 12.5% of Rs.6,13,276/- and worked out the addition at Rs.76,660/-.
Aggrieved, the Revenue is now in appeal before us. We note that the assessee before the A.O. as well as before the ld. CIT(A) and even now before us contended that it has filed copies of purchase invoices, ledger account of parties, stock register and also the bank statement showing each and every payment of purchases. It was claimed by the assessee that non production of transportation bill cannot be the reason for making the addition of bogus purchase. We note that all these details were produced which are uncontroverted. Once this is the position, we are of the view that the ld. CIT(A) has rightly restricted the disallowance of 12.5% on the bogus purchase. Hence, we confirm the same.
In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue’s is dismissed.
Order pronounced in the open court on 18.03.2021.