SAWALCAHD B SANGHVI,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WD 19(3)(2), MUMBAI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 1184/MUM/2019Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 March 2020AY 2009-104 pages
AI SummaryPartly Allowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that since the sales from these purchases were accepted as genuine, the entire purchases could not be treated as non-genuine. However, considering the possibility of gray market purchases, the addition was restricted to 4% of the bogus purchases.

What were the facts?

The assessee, a metal supplier, was found to have availed accommodation entries for purchases without actual material. The Assessing Officer added the entire purchase amount as unexplained investment, which was sustained by the CIT(A).

What were the issues?

Whether the entire amount of purchases, for which accommodation entries were allegedly taken, can be added to the income when sales from such purchases are accepted as genuine? What is the appropriate disallowance for purchases made without proper documentation but from which genuine sales have occurred?

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 143(1),Section 148

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Cases cited in this judgment(3)Show list

Detected automatically from the text. Citations are also linked where they appear in the judgment. The count shows how many other judgments on BharatTax rely on the same authority.

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, MUMBAI BENCH “SMC”, MUMBAI

Before: SHRI C.N. PRASAD, HONBLE & SHRI S. RIFAUR RAHMAN, HONBLE

For Appellant: Shri H.A. Shah
For Respondent: Shri Kiran Unavekar
Hearing: 27.02.2020Pronounced: 13.03.2020

O R D E R PER C.N. PRASAD (JM) 1. This appeal is filed by the assessee against the order of the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) – 30, Mumbai [hereinafter in short “Ld.CIT(A)”] dated 10.09.2018 for the Assessment Year 2009-10.

2.

Assessee challenged the order of the Ld.CIT(A) in sustaining the addition made by the Assessing Officer towards unexplained investment in respect of bogus purchases of ₹.17,55,675/.

(A.Y: 2009-10) Sawalchand B. Sanghvi 3. Briefly stated the facts are that, the assessee an individual engaged in the business of supplier of Ferrous and non-Ferrous metals, iron, steels etc., filed return of income on 27.09.2009 declaring income of ₹.2,42,751/-. Return was processed u/s. 143(1) of the Act and subsequently reopened by issue of notice on 27.03.2014 u/s. 148 of the Act based on the information received from the DGIT (Inv) Mumbai, stating that assessee has availed accommodation entries from various dealers without purchase of any materials from them. In the course of re-assessment proceedings assessee was required to prove the genuineness of the purchases made from five parties as mentioned in the Assessment Order. In response to the notice, assessee failed to produce the parties before the Assessing Officer and could not furnish the documents as sought for. Accordingly, Assessing Officer treated the purchases as non-genuine and he was of the opinion that assessee had obtained only accommodation entries without there being any transportation of materials and the assessee might have made purchases in the gray market. The Assessing Officer treated purchases of ₹.17,55,675/- as non-genuine and added to the income of the assessee. The Ld.CIT(A) sustained the addition as made by the Assessing Officer as none appeared before the Ld.CIT(A) to prosecute the case of the assessee.

(A.Y: 2009-10) Sawalchand B. Sanghvi 4. Before us, the Ld. Counsel for the assessee reiterated the submissions made before the lower authorities and the Ld. DR vehemently supported the orders of the authorities below.

5.

We have heard the rival submissions, perused the orders of the authorities below. It is not in dispute that sales have been accepted as genuine from out of these purchases. When the sales have been accepted as genuine the entire purchases cannot be treated as non-genuine. The Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in the case of Bholanath Polyfab Pvt. Ltd [355 ITR 290] held that when the assessee made purchases and sold the finished goods as a natural corollary not the entire amount covered under such purchases would be subject to tax but only the profit element embedded therein. Similar view has been taken by the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in the case of CIT v. Simit P. Seth [38 taxman.com 385]. Simply because the parties were not produced the entire purchases cannot be added as held by the Bombay High Court in the case of CIT v. Nikunj Eximp [216 Taxman.com 171]. However, at the same time keeping in view the nature of business of the assessee and the fact that the assessee is making some local purchases without any transportation bills, lorry receipts etc, the possibility of making purchases in gray market on cash cannot be ruled out. Taking the totality of facts and circumstances into consideration and the nature of business carried

(A.Y: 2009-10) Sawalchand B. Sanghvi on by the assessee we direct the Assessing Officer to restrict the disallowance/addition to 4% of the bogus purchases. Accordingly, we direct the Assessing Officer to restrict the disallowance of purchases to 4% and compute the income accordingly.

6.

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed.

Order pronounced in the open court on the 13th March, 2020

More judgments on Section 148

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →