SHRI MOHAMMED MOBIN M. H. CHOUDHARY,MUMBAI vs. ITO 26 (3)(2), MUMBAI
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal found that the sales tax department's information was not examined, and no adverse inference was taken by the lower authorities. Therefore, to serve the interest of justice, the issue was remitted back to the Assessing Officer for fresh consideration.
What were the facts?
The assessee, engaged in the business of reselling M.S. Scraps, faced additions for bogus purchases based on information from the sales tax department. The assessee claimed their books of accounts were seized by the sales tax department and could not be produced.
What were the issues?
Whether the addition on account of bogus purchases is justified without proper examination of the sales tax department's information and without considering the assessee's plea of seized documents.
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
Heard together (2 matters)
Read from the judgment's own cause title. This page is filed under one of them.
These are appeals by the assessee wherein assessee has challenged Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [in short learned CIT(A)] order upholding the addition on account of bogus purchase @ 100% as under :
A.Y. 2009-10 Rs. 20,27,753/- A.Y. 2011-12 Rs. 6,01,500/-
Brief facts of the case are that assessee is engaged in the business of reseller of M.S. Scraps and iron and steel. The assessment was reopened pursuant to information from the sales tax Department that the assessee has purchased from certain bogus parties. The assessing officer in the assessment order noted that assessee did not supply any information for notice given in this regard. Hence assessing officer added hundred percent of the bogus purchases.
Upon assessee's appeals learned CIT(A) noted the assessee's contention that all the documents were submitted to the assessing officer. Thereafter on 2 Shri Mohammed Mobin M.H. Choudhary further enquiry learned CIT(appeals) noted that assessee has contended that the books of accounts and documents were seized by the sales tax Department and assessee could not produce the same. However the learned CIT(appeals) rejected this contention . Thereafter on the basis of sales tax Department information and the non-furnishing of documents and details by the assessee learned CIT(appeals) confirmed the hundred percent addition made by the assessing officer for the bogus purchases.
Against in this order assessee is in appeal before ITAT. I have heard the learned departmental representative and perused the records. I find that the contention of the assessee before the learned CIT appeals is that the books and documents were seized by the sales tax the Department and as such the assessee could not produce the same. Furthermore I note that the sales have neither been examined nor any adverse inference taken by the authorities below. In such circumstances in my considered opinion interest of justice will be served if the issue is remitted to the file of assessing officer for consideration afresh. Needless to add the assessee should be granted adequate opportunity of being heard.
In the result these appeals by the assessee stand allowed for statistical purposes.
Order pronounced under Rule 34(4) of the ITAT Rules by placing the result on notice board on 17.11.2020.
More judgments on Section 68
- ACIT Central Bilaspur, Bilaspur vs Arun Kumar Agrawal, SaktiITSSA 26/RPR/2025[2018-19]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2018-19
- Neo Incorporation, Rajkot vs DCIT Circle- 1(2), RajkotITA 471/RJT/2026[2012-2013]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2012-2013
- Bliss Dealtrade Private Limited, Kolkata vs Income Tax Officer - Ward 9(2) Kolkata…ITA 208/KOL/2026[2012-13]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2012-13
- Hemal Paresh Madeka, Rajkot vs Asst.Commissioner of Income Tax…ITA 955/RJT/2026[2020-21]Status: Disposed19 Oct 2026AY 2020-21
- Ajaybhai Dineshbhai Bagdai, Near Central… vs The Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(2)(1), New…ITA 74/RJT/2026[2013-14]Status: Disposed19 Oct 2026AY 2013-14
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- Dezinetree Projects PVT. LTD. vs. Spokes Digital Inc And AnrDelhi · 28 Oct 2026
- Jaydeep Jayantilal Hudaka vs. State Of GujaratGujarat · 28 Oct 2026
- Commissioner/Additional Commissioner Of Central Tax vs. M/S INDIA Agro Exports Private LimitedKarnataka · 28 Oct 2026
- Manoj Kumar Prop M K Steel Traders vs. Additional Commissioner, Central Goods And Services Tax & Anr.Delhi · 28 Oct 2026
- M/S. Rohit Medical Systems vs. Commissioner Of Delhi Goods And Services Tax And Anr.Delhi · 28 Oct 2026