M/S B.C.SEN & CO. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. D.C.I.T.,CIRCLE-11(1), KOLKATA

PDF · subscribers
ITA 1854/KOL/2019Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata06 January 2021AY 2010-112 pages

In favour of the assessee: the assessee's appeal was allowed. From the AI summary of this appeal.

AI SummaryAllowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that re-opening the assessment for such a small amount, given the assessee's substantial turnover and declared income, was not warranted. The addition was made without sufficient evidence, and the corresponding sales were not doubted.

What were the facts?

The assessee, a company dealing in jewellery and other articles, had its assessment re-opened based on an alleged bogus purchase of ₹74,750. The assessee provided extensive documentation, including invoices, ledger accounts, and bank statements, to support its transactions.

What were the issues?

The key issues were the validity of re-opening the assessment and the justification for the addition made on account of alleged bogus purchases without adequate evidence.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 148,Section 147,Section 143(3),Section 250

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, KOLKATA ‘B’ BENCH, KOLKATA

Before: Sri J. Sudhakar Reddy & Sri Aby T. Varkey

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL KOLKATA ‘B’ BENCH, KOLKATA (Virtual Court) (Before Sri J. Sudhakar Reddy, Accountant Member & Sri Aby T. Varkey, Judicial Member) Assessment Year: 2010-11 M/s. B.C. Sen & Co. Ltd........................................................................................................Appellant [PAN: AABCB 2070 P] Vs. DCIT, Circle-11(1), Kolkata.....………………..…............................................................Respondent Appearances by: Sh. Soumitra Choudhury, Adv., appeared on behalf of the Assessee. Smt. Ranu Biswas, Addl. CIT, appeared on behalf of the Revenue. Date of concluding the hearing : December 3rd, 2020 Date of pronouncing the order : January 6th, 2021 ORDER Per J. Sudhakar Reddy, AM:

This is an appeal filed by the assessee directed against the order of the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-4, Kolkata, [hereinafter the “CIT(A)”], passed u/s. 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the ‘Act’), dated 27.03.2019 for the Assessment Year 2010-11.

2.

The assessee is a company and is in the business of manufacture and export of gold/platinum jewelleries, silver articles, traders of watches, pen and other articles. It filed its return of income on 30.09.2010 declaring total income of ₹8,24,83,291/-. The return was processed u/s 143(1) of the Act on 15.04.2011. Subsequently the assessment was re-opened u/s 148 of the Act. An assessment order u/s 147 r.w.s. 143(3) of the Act was passed on 11.01.2016 determining the total income of the assessee at ₹8,25,58,040/-. The sole addition of ₹74,750/- was made on the ground that this was a bogus purchase from Karnawat Impex Pvt. Ltd.

3.

Aggrieved, the assessee carried the matter in appeal before the ld. CIT(A) without success.

4.

Further aggrieved, the assessee is in appeal before us challenging both the re- opening of assessment as well as the addition on merits.

Assessment Year: 2010-11 M/s. B.C. Sen & Co. Ltd.

5.

After hearing rival contentions, we find that this is a case where the assessee has declared turnover of ₹123 crores. It has declared income of ₹8.24 crores. On these facts to re-open the assessment holding that the assessee has made a bogus purchase of ₹74,750/- is not warranted. The assessee has filed a paper book running into 101 pages before us. Copies of the invoice from Karnawat Impex Pvt. Ltd. dated 15.04.2019, copy of the ledger account, copy of the bank statement, statement showing the in-flow and out-flow of diamonds during the year. Statement of tax invoice showing sales of diamonds from 15.04.2009 to 16.07.2009 has been filed before us. The sales of the closing stock are not doubted by the AO. The addition has been made without evidence. When the AO holds that a purchase is bogus, then the corresponding sale is also to be held as bogus. This is not done. In view of the above discussion and on examination of the evidence on record, we delete the addition made and allow the appeal of the assessee.

6.

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed. Kolkata, the 6th January, 2021. Sd/- Sd/- [Aby T. Varkey] [J. Sudhakar Reddy] Judicial Member Accountant Member Dated: 06.01.2021 Bidhan (P.S.) Copy of the order forwarded to:

1. 1. M/s. B.C. Sen & Co. Ltd., 4, Lee Road, Kolkata-700 020.

2. DCIT, Circle-11(1), Kolkata.

3. CIT(A)-4, Kolkata. (sent through mail) 4. CIT- 5. CIT(DR), Kolkata Benches, Kolkata. (sent through mail)

More judgments on Section 148

All 35,022 judgments and leading authorities on Section 148 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →