ITO 24 (2)(3), MUMBAI vs. SHRI. KAILASH SRICHAND MAKHIJA, MUMBAI

The revenue challenges the order of Ld. Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals)-36, Mumbai, [CIT(A)] dated 28/06/2019 which has provided certain relief to the assessee on account of alleged bogus purchases.

The Ld. AR drew attention to the fact that Ld. CIT(A) followed order for AY 2009-10 which has been confirmed by Tribunal in order dated 15/10/2019 wherein revenue’s appeal has been dismissed. The copy of the order has been placed on record. 3.1 The material facts are that the assessee being resident individual stated to be engaged in trading of leather products under proprietorship concern namely M/s Leather Craft was assessed for the year under consideration u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 147 of the Act on 18/12/2018. The original return filed by the assessee was processed u/s 143(1) of the Act. However, pursuant to receipt of certain information from DGIT (Inv.) / Sales Tax Department, Mumbai, it transpired that the assessee procured accommodation purchase bills of Rs.11 Lacs from three entities as detailed in the assessment order. Accordingly, the case was reopened as per due process of law and the assessee was required to file requisite details to substantiate the purchases. 3.2 Though the assesse filed documents / details in support of the purchases, however, notices issued u/s 133(6) to the suppliers did not elicit any satisfactory response. Consequently, Ld. AO estimated addition of 12.5% against these purchases. 3.3 Upon further appeal, Ld. CIT(A), inter-alia, relying upon estimation made in earlier appellate order, restricted the additions to 8%. Aggrieved the revenue is in further appeal before us. 4. We find that appeal of revenue for AY 2009-10, filed on similar facts, has been dismissed by the coordinate bench of the Tribunal in ITA No.5470/Mum/2018 dated 15/10/2019 wherein the bench has confirmed the estimation of 8%. Facts as well as issue being pari-materia the same, taking the same view, we confirm the estimation of 8% and dismiss the appeal. 5. The appeal stands dismissed. Order pronounced on 09th June, 2021.