No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “H” BENCH, MUMBAI
Before: HON’BLE SHRI SAKTIJIT DEY, JM & HON’BLE SHRI MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL, AM
आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण “एच” "ायपीठ मुंबई म"। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “H” BENCH, MUMBAI माननीय "ी श""जीत दे, "ाियक सद" एवं माननीय "ी मनोज कुमार अ"वाल ,लेखा सद" के सम"। BEFORE HON’BLE SHRI SAKTIJIT DEY, JM AND HON’BLE SHRI MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL, AM (Hearing Through Video Conferencing Mode) आयकर अपील सं./ (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2008-09) & आयकर अपील सं./ (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2010-11) JCIT(OSD) M/s. Hicons Construction Central Circle-5(1) B-201, Leo Apartments बनाम/ Room No.1926, 19th Floor 24th Road, Khar(W) Vs. Air India Bldg., Nariman Point Mumbai-400 052. Mumbai-400 021. PAN/GIR No. AAEFH-3281-J (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" / Respondent) : Assessee by : None Revenue by : Shri Gurbinder Singh -Ld.Sr. DR सुनवाई की तारीख/ : 01/12/2020 Date of Hearing घोषणा की तारीख / : 01/12/2020 Date of Pronouncement आदेश / O R D E R Manoj Kumar Aggarwal (Accountant Member)
By way of these appeals for Assessment Years (AY) 2008-09 and 2010-11, the department challenges the common order of Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-53, Mumbai [CIT(A)], dated 28/11/2018 which has restricted the addition on account of alleged bogus purchases to 25%.
None appeared for assessee at the time of hearing and no valid adjournment application was on record. However, we find that the impugned order is common order for AYs 2007-08, 2008-09 & 2010-11. The appeal of the revenue for AY 2007-08 has already been dismissed by coordinate bench of this Tribunal in order dated 12/02/2020. Facts are identical in all the three years and therefore, we are inclined to follow the earlier order of the Tribunal. 3. Facts in AY 2008-09 are that the assessee has been assessed u/s 144 r.w.s. 147 vide order dated 19/02/2015. In the said order, the assessee was saddled with certain additions on account of alleged bogus purchases aggregating to Rs.288.45 Lacs from two entities, the details of which have already been extracted in para-3 of the assessment order. The assessee failed to appear before Ld. AO during assessment proceedings. Therefore, going by the material on record, the said purchases were disallowed and added to the income of the assessee in its entirety. Similar are the facts in AY 2010-11 wherein the assessee was saddled with similar additions of Rs.194.04 Lacs. 4. Upon further appeal, Ld. CIT(A) observed that the disallowance so made would yield abnormal high profits and therefore, the additions were to be estimated at 25% of aggregate purchases. Aggrieved, the revenue is in further appeal before us. 5. We find that the Tribunal has already dismissed appeal of revenue for AY 2007-08 vide ITA No.1118/Mum/2019 order dated 12/02/2020 wherein the estimation of 25% has been upheld by the coordinate bench. Respectfully following the same, we dismiss both the appeals.