SHRI. ASHURAM UDARAMJI BISHNOI,MUMBAI vs. ITO 19(1)(2), MUMBAI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 772/MUM/2019Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 March 2020AY 2011-123 pages
AI SummaryPartly Allowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal, following its own previous orders in similar cases, directed the AO to restrict the addition to 5% of the alleged bogus purchases.

What were the facts?

The Assessing Officer (AO) reopened the assessment based on information about bogus purchase bills and made an addition of 12.5% on alleged bogus purchases. The CIT(A) reduced this addition by the assessee's declared G.P. rate.

What were the issues?

The primary issue was the quantum of addition to be made on account of alleged bogus purchases, and whether the addition made by the AO and upheld in part by the CIT(A) was justified.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 143(3),Section 147

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “SMC”, BENCH

For Appellant: Shri S.L. Jain (AR)
For Respondent: Shri R.K. Gubgotra (JCIT-DR)
Hearing: 05/02/2020Pronounced: 11/03/2020

O R D E R PER: R.C. SHARMA, A.M. This appeal by the assessee is directed against the order dated 27/09/2018 of ld. CIT(A)-54, Mumbai for the A.Y. 2011-12 in the matter of order passed U/s 143(3) r.w.s. 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short, the Act).

2.

In this appeal, the assessee is basically aggrieved for upholding addition of 12.5% made on account of bogus purchases.

3.

I have gone through the orders of the authorities below and found that the A.O. got information regarding assessee taking bogus purchases bills, accordingly, he reopened the assessment and Shri Ashuram U Bishnoi Vs ITO thereafter made addition of 12.5% with respect to alleged bogus purchases. By the impugned order, the ld. CIT(A) has further reduced addition by the amount of G.P. rate declared by the assessee. Against which the assessee is in further appeal before the ITAT.

4.

The ld AR of the assessee has placed on record the order of the Tribunal in assessee’s own for the A.Y. 2009-10 and 2011-12 wherein under similar facts and circumstances, the Tribunal have upheld the addition to the extent of 5%.

5.

I have carefully gone through the order of the Tribunal and found that with regard to similar bogus purchases. The Tribunal in assessee’s own case for the A.Y. 2009-10 and 2010-11 vide its order dated 07/01/2020 passed in & 6640/Mum/2018 has upheld the addition to the extent of 5% in respect of alleged bogus purchases. Respectfully following the order of the Tribunal, I direct the A.O. to restrict the addition to the extent of 5%.

6.

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed in part.

Order pronounced in the open court on 11th March, 2020.

More judgments on Section 147

All 49,210 judgments and leading authorities on Section 147 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →