ACIT-29(1), MUMBAI vs. JASMINA SAJAY DOSHI, M

PDF · subscribers
ITA 4026/MUM/2019Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 November 2020AY 2011-123 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 upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to restrict the addition to 3.3% of suspicious purchases, considering the assessee had already offered a Gross Profit Rate of 9.20%. Making further additions would lead to abnormal GP rates.

What were the facts?

The Revenue challenged the CIT(A)'s decision to restrict an addition on account of alleged bogus purchases. The assessee had made purchases aggregating to Rs. 22.69 Lacs from two entities, which the AO considered unverifiable and made an addition of 12.5%.

What were the issues?

Whether the CIT(A) was justified in restricting the addition on account of bogus purchases by considering the Gross Profit Rate already offered by the assessee.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 133(6)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “F” BENCH, MUMBAI

Before: HON’BLE SHRI SAKTIJIT DEY, JM & HON’BLE SHRI MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL, AM

For Respondent: Shri Chintamani Dingankar-Ld.Sr. DR

आदेश / O R D E R Manoj Kumar Aggarwal (Accountant Member)

1.

At the time of hearing, none appeared for assessee. However, the material on record was sufficient for disposal of this appeal filed by revenue. Therefore, the matter was proceeded with for disposal. The department is challenging the action of Ld. first appellate authority in restricting certain addition on account of alleged bogus purchases.

Assessment Year: 2011-12 2. The assessee was subjected to reassessment proceedings for the year under consideration pursuant to receipt of certain information from DGIT(Inv.) that the assessee entered into hawala transactions of purchases aggregating to Rs.22.69 Lacs from two entities. The details of the same have already been extracted in para-3 of the assessment order dated 29/01/2016. Notices issued u/s 133(6) to both the entities elicited no response. The assessee failed to produce any of the suppliers to confirm the transactions. However, the assessee submitted invoices, ledger accounts along with copies of bank statement evidencing payment through banking channels. However, opining that the purchases were not verifiable, Ld. AO estimated addition of 12.5% against these purchases.

3.

Before Ld. first appellate authority, the assessee, inter-alia, pointed out that it already offered Gross Profit Rate of 9.20% and the sales were not doubted. Accepting the said plea, Ld. AO was directed to give the benefit of GP rate already offered by the assessee and restrict the additions to 3.3% of suspicious purchases. Aggrieved, the revenue is in further appeal before us.

4.

Upon due consideration of factual matrix as enumerated in preceding paragraphs, we find no infirmity in the action of Ld. CIT(A) in granting the benefit of GP rate already offered by the assessee since making further additions of 12.5% would enhance the GP rate to abnormal levels of 21.70%. Therefore, finding no substance in the appeal, we dismiss the same.

Assessment Year: 2011-12 5. The appeal stands dismissed. Order pronounced on 25th November, 2020.

Sd/- Sd/- (Saktijit Dey) (Manoj Kumar Aggarwal) �ाियक सद� / Judicial Member लेखा सद� / Accountant Member मुंबई Mumbai; िदनांकDated : 25/11/2020 Sr.PS:-Jaisy Varghese आदेश की �ितिलिप अ�ेिषत/Copy of the Order forwarded to : अपीलाथ�/ The Appellant 1. ��थ�/ The Respondent 2. आयकरआयु�(अपील) / The CIT(A) 3. आयकरआयु�/ CIT– concerned 4. िवभागीय�ितिनिध, आयकरअपीलीयअिधकरण, मुंबई/ DR, ITAT, Mumbai 5. गाड�फाईल / Guard File 6.

More judgments on Section 133(6)

All 7,227 judgments and leading authorities on Section 133(6) →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →