Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “SMC” BENCH, MUMBAI
Before: SHRI C. N. PRASAD, JM & SHRI S. RIFAUR RAHMAN, AM
Shri Nagin G. Suthar, ITO – 22(2)(4), 310, 3rd floor, Piramal Room No. 2, Pipwala बिधम/ Chambers, Lal Baug, Chawl, Prabhat Colony, Vs. Parel, Mumbai-400 012 Next to Yoga Centre, Santacruz East, Mumbai-400 055 स्थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./PAN No. AIGPM3819F (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) : अपीलाथीकीओरसे/ Appellant by : Shri Kiran Unavekar, DR प्रत्यथीकीओरसे/Respondentby : Shri Bhupendra Shah, AR सुनवाईकीतारीख/ : 26.02.2020 Date of Hearing घोषणाकीतारीख / : 06.03.2020 Date of Pronouncement आदेश / O R D E R PER BENCH: The present five (5) appeals have been filed by the revenue against the order of Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)- 34, Mumbai, dated 07.09.18 for AY 2008-09 to 2012-13 respectively. therefore, for the sake of convenience, these appeals are clubbed, heard and disposed of by this consolidated order. Firstly, we are taking AY 2008-09 filed by the revenue.
The brief facts of the case are, during assessment proceeding, AO observed that assessee has claimed a sum of Rs. 74,33,239/- as purchases during the year. AO further observed that assessee has made purchases from the following non- genuine parties as per the information received from the Sales Tax Department, which is as under:-
S.No. TIN Name PAN Amount (Rs.) 1. 27300350341V SHAKTI TRADING CO. AIOPG8087B 9,60,119 2. 27400628967V GLOBAL TRADE IMPEX AMRPB2286L 1,34,803 3. 27330137458V CHIRAG CORPORATION AAHPM6402D 4,82,383 4. 27540501626V MAHAVIR AIIPR7361K 1,01,312 CORPORATION 5. 27060224373V CORAL TRADING CO. APPMC3411V 12,60,813 6. 27580171804V SHREE YAMUNA AAEPM8551G 7,14,859 IMPEX TOTAL 36,54,289
Further assessee was asked to prove the genuineness of the transactions by submitting relevant documents before the AO.
3 to 7300/Mum/2018 Shri Nagin G. Suthar, Since the AO has not convinced with the submissions of the assessee, AO disallowed the above said non-genuine purchases and disallowed 100% of the purchases made from M/s Chirag Corporation and Shree Yamuna Impex to the extent of Rs. 11,97,242/- and with regard to other suppliers, AO disallowed 25% of the purchases as non-genuine.
Aggrieved by the above order of AO, assessee preferred appeal before Ld. CIT(A) and Ld. CIT(A) after considering the submission of assessee and referring to various case law, restricted the disallowed to 12.5% of the non-genuine purchases considering the fact that AO has not doubted the sales, therefore assessee might have some benefit by purchasing the above from grey market.
Now before us, the revenue has preferred appeal by raising the grounds of appeal as under:-
11. "On the facts and in the circumstance of the case and law, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in granting relief of Rs.13,54,718/- by restricting the addition to 12.05% of alleged bogus purchase.".
4 to 7300/Mum/2018 Shri Nagin G. Suthar, 12. "On the facts and in circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) failed to appreciate the fact that onus is on the assessee to explain and substantiate the genuineness and true of the transaction.'
The appellant prays that appeal is being filed because it covered under exception provided in the para 10(e) of the amended instruction no. 3 of 2018 dated 20.08.2018.
The appellant prays that the order of the CIT(A), on the above ground to be reversed and that of the Assessing Officer be restored.
The appellant craves to leave to amend or alter any ground or add a new ground which may be necessary.
We have heard counsels for both the parties and we have also perused the material placed on record as well as the orders passed by revenue authorities. We notice from the record that AO has disallowed 100% of the purchases made from M/s Chirag Corporation and Shree Yamuna Impex and for the other parties, he has disallowed 25% of the purchases as non-genuine. We notice that Ld. CIT(A) observed that AO has doubted only the purchases made by the assessee from the non-genuine suppliers, whereas assessee has declared corresponding sales, therefore 5 to 7300/Mum/2018 Shri Nagin G. Suthar, assessee must have utilized the purchases in its trading and assessee must have made some purchases from grey market and indulged in making some profit. Therefore, Ld. CIT(A) has restricted the disallowance @ 12.5% of the non-genuine purchases by relying on various decision of Hon’ble High court and Coordinate Benches of ITAT. Therefore, this is in line with the consistent view of the Coordinate Benches, we are inclined to accept the findings of Ld. CIT(A) and accordingly, the grounds raised by the revenue are dismissed.
Since the facts in other appeals filed by the revenue are similar to the facts of above appeal i.e. , therefore, the grounds raised in these appeals are also dismissed.