KAMLESH MANOHAR KANUNGO,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CEN CIR 1(4), MUMBAI

The present appeals filed by the assessee are directed against the respective orders passed by the CIT(A)-47, Mumbai for A.Y. 2010-11 and A.Y. 2011-12, which in turn arises from the assessment orders passed under Sec. 143(3) r.w.s 147 AND under Sec. 143(3) r.w.s 153C of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short „Act‟), for the aforementioned respective years. As common issues are involved in the aforementioned appeals, therefore, the same are being taken up and disposed off by way of a consolidated order. We shall first advert to the appeal of the assessee for A.Y. 2010-11. The only effective ground of appeal

Briefly stated, assessment under Sec. 143(3) r.w.s 153C of the Act for A.Y: 2010-11 was framed on 27.03.2014, assessing the total income of the assessee at Rs.1,71,25,646/-, as against the returned income of Rs.1,68,61,436/- that was filed by him on 21.09.2012 in response to notice issued under Sec. 153C of the Act. On the basis of information received from the DGIT (Investigation), Mumbai, that the assessee as a beneficiary had obtained accommodation entries from two concerns viz. (1) M/s Veer Corporation: Rs.66,24,800/-; and (ii) M/s Apex Ferromate Pvt. ltd.: Rs.1,85,49,544/-, the case of the assessee was reopened under Sec. 147 of the Act.

During the course of the assessment proceedings as the assessee failed to substantiate the genuineness of the purchases claimed to have been made from the aforementioned parties, therefore, the A.O held a conviction that the assessee had booked bogus purchase in his books of accounts. At the same time, it was observed by the A.O that the fact that the assessee had purchased the goods under consideration could also not be ruled out. In the backdrop of the aforesaid facts, the A.O was of the view that the assessee had purchased the goods not from the aforementioned parties but had procured the same from the open/grey market. Backed by his aforesaid conviction, the A.O worked out the profit element embedded in making of such purchases by the assessee from the open/grey market by applying the current years G.P rate of 3.12% to the value of the impugned purchases of Rs.2,51,74,344/-. Resultantly, an addition of Rs.7,85,440/- (3.12% of Rs.2,51,74,344/-) was made by the A.O.

Aggrieved, the assessee assailed the assessment before the CIT(A). However, the CIT(A) was not persuaded to subscribe to the contentions advanced by the assessee in support of his claim that genuine purchases were made by him from the aforementioned parties. On the contrary, the CIT(A) enhanced the addition made by the A.O and worked out the same by applying a G.P. rate of 5% on the value of the impugned purchases. Accordingly, the addition made by the AO was enhanced by the CIT(A) to Rs.12,58,717/-.

The assessee being aggrieved with the order of the CIT(A) has carried the matter in appeal before us. The ld. Authorized Representative (for short „A.R‟) for the assessee at the & 2061/Mum/2018 AYs. 2010-11 & 2011-12 Kamlesh Manohar Kanungo Vs. Dy. CIT, CC-1(4) 3 very outset of the hearing of the appeal submitted that involving identical facts the Tribunal while disposing off the cross-appeals of the assessee and the revenue in & 3243/Mum/2016, dated 28.02.2017 (assesse‟s appeals) and in ITA No.3087 & 3088/Mum/2016 (revenue‟s appeals), for A.Y: 2007-08 and A.Y: 2008-09, had restricted the addition in respect of the bogus purchase made by the assessee to 2% of the aggregate value of such purchases. Accordingly, it was submitted by the ld. A.R that on a similar footing the disallowance in the present case may also be restricted to the said extent i.e to 2% of the value of the impugned purchases.

Per contra, the ld. Departmental Representative (for short „D.R‟) relied on the orders of the lower authorities). However, the ld. D.R could not controvert the aforesaid claim so raised by the counsel for the assessee before us.

We have heard the authorized representatives for both the parties, perused the orders of the lower authorities and the material available on record. Admittedly, it is a matter of fact borne from the records that the assessee could not substantiate the authenticity of the impugned purchase transactions to the satisfaction of the A.O. At the same time, the A.O being of the view that the assessee had purchased the goods not from the aforementioned parties but from the open/grey market, had thus restricted the addition to the extent of the profit which the assessee would had made by procuring such goods at a discounted value. As regards the quantification of the aforesaid profit element embedded in making of the impugned purchases, the A.O had applied the current year G.P rate of 3.12% to the aggregate value of the impugned purchases of Rs.2,51,74,344/-, and made an addition of Rs.7,85,440/-. On appeal, the CIT(A) not only rejected the claim of the assessee that he had made genuine purchases from the aforementioned parties, but on the contrary enhanced the addition by adopting the G.P rate of 5%. Accordingly, the CIT(A) substituted the addition of Rs.7,85,440/- made by the A.O by an amount of Rs.12,58,712/- resulting to an enhancement of Rs.4,73,277/-.

We have given a thoughtful consideration to the issue before us, and find, that the controversy therein involved hinges around the quantification of the profit element involved in making of the impugned purchases by the assessee from open/grey market. Admittedly, the Tribunal while disposing off the cross-appeals of the assessee and the revenue for A.Ys. 2007- 08 and A.Y. 2008-09, had restricted the addition to 2% of the aggregate value of the impugned & 2061/Mum/2018 AYs. 2010-11 & 2011-12 Kamlesh Manohar Kanungo Vs. Dy. CIT, CC-1(4) 4 purchases. On a perusal of the order passed by the Tribunal while disposing off the appeal of the assessee for A.Y. 2007-09, A.Y. 2008-09 and A.Y. 2011-12, in 3243 and 3244/Mum/2016, dated 28.02.2017, we find that the Tribunal had restricted the addition to 2% of the value of the bogus purchase, observing as under:

Resultantly, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed in terms of our aforesaid observations. A.Y. 2011-12 10. We shall now advert to the appeal of the assessee for A.Y. 2011-12. The assessee has assailed the impugned order on the following effective ground of appeal

Resultantly, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed in terms of our aforesaid observations.

The appeals of the assessee for A.Y. 2010-11 in A.Y. 2011-12 in are both partly allowed.