ACIT 19 (3), MUMBAI vs. M/S YOGESH CONSTRUCTION, MUMBAI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 1519/MUM/2019Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 January 2021AY 2011-122 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 found no infirmity in the CIT(A)'s order as it was based on a precedent in the assessee's own case for a prior year. No distinguishing features were presented to deviate from this decision.

What were the facts?

The revenue appealed against the CIT(A)'s order which restricted additions on account of alleged bogus purchases to 12.5%, as opposed to the full disallowance made by the AO. The CIT(A) had followed a previous Tribunal order for the assessee's own case for AY 2010-11.

What were the issues?

Whether the CIT(A) was justified in restricting additions on account of bogus purchases by following a previous Tribunal order for the assessee's own case.

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “G” BENCH, MUMBAI

Before: HON’BLE SHRI MAHAVIR SINGH, VP & HON’BLE SHRI MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL, AM

For Respondent: Shri T.S. Khalsa- Ld. DR

आदेश / O R D E R Manoj Kumar Aggarwal (Accountant Member) 1. The revenue assails the order of Ld. Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals)-29, Mumbai, [in short CIT(A)] Appeal No. CIT(A)-29/IT-733/ACIT-19(3)/2017-18 dated 20/12/2018. The grievance of the revenue stem from the fact that Ld. CIT(A) has restricted the additions on account of alleged bogus purchases to the extent of 12.5% only as against full disallowance made by Ld. AO in quantum assessment order dated 25/10/2016.

1.

M/s. Yogesh Construction Assessment Year: 2011-12 2. Though none appeared for assessee, but is quite evident from the impugned order that Ld. CIT(A) has restricted the additions to the extent of 12.5% by following the order of Tribunal in assessee’s own case for AY 2010-11. The facts have been found to be identical. Similar is the position before us. Since Ld. CIT(A) has estimated the additions by following the order of Tribunal in assessee’s own case for AY 2010-11 and no distinguishing features have been demonstrated before us, no infirmity could be found in the impugned order. There is nothing on record which would show that the aforesaid decision is not applicable to the facts of this year or the said order has subsequently been reversed, in any manner. Hence, we are declined to dismiss the appeal.

3.

Resultantly, the appeal stands dismissed.

Order pronounced on 12th January, 2021.

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →