ITO, 27(1)(1), MUMBAI vs. ABDULLAH ABDULKARIM SHAIKH, MUMBAI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 1138/MUM/2019Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 February 2020AY 2009-103 pages

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

AI SummaryDismissed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal found the CIT(A)'s order to be reasoned and upheld it. Since the assessee did not challenge the partial sustainment of addition, the Revenue's appeal was dismissed.

What were the facts?

The Revenue appealed against the CIT(A)'s order deleting an addition made by the AO for bogus purchases. The AO had added the full amount of purchases, but the CIT(A) sustained a part of the addition based on the average GP.

What were the issues?

Whether the addition for bogus purchases made by the AO was correctly deleted/partially sustained by the CIT(A) and if the Tribunal should interfere with the CIT(A)'s order.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 139(1),Section 147,Section 148

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Cases cited in this judgment(1)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 & SHRI RAJESH KUMAR

For Respondent: Shri R. Bhoopati, Sr. D.R
Hearing: 11.02.2020Pronounced: 18.02.2020

Per Rajesh Kumar, Accountant Member:

1.

The present appeal has been preferred by the Revenue against the order dated 28.11.2018 of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [hereinafter referred to as the CIT(A)] relevant to assessment year 2009-10.

2.

During the course of hearing, neither assessee nor his authorized representative appeared to attend the hearing nor any application seeking adjournment was filed. Therefore, we are disposing off the appeal after hearing the Ld. D.R. and going through the facts of the case.

2 Shri Abdullah Abdulkarim Shaikh 3. The only issue raised by the Revenue is against the deletion of addition of Rs.4,42,987/- by Ld. CIT(A) as made by the AO on account of bogus purchases.

4.

The facts in brief are that the assessee filed return of income under section 139(1) of the Act on 29.09.2009 declaring an income of Rs.2,00,681/-. Thereafter the case of the assessee was reopened under section 147 of the Act by issuing notice under section 148 dated 30.03.2014 after AO received information from DGIT (Investigation), Mumbai and Sales Tax Department, Government of Maharashtra that assessee is beneficiary of hawala purchase entries. Accordingly, the AO called upon the assessee to prove the genuineness of the said purchases. The assessee filed copies of purchase bills, vouchers, payment details and delivery challans etc. However, AO was not satisfied with the reply of the assessee and added the entire bogus purchases of Rs.6,10,679/- to the income of the assessee by holding that assessee has not produced the consumption of the alleged material purchased in the manufacturing process.

5.

In the appellate proceedings, Ld. CIT(A) partly allowed the appeal of the assessee by sustaining the addition @ 27.46% being average GP of the last three years by following the decision of Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in the case of CIT vs. Simit P. Sheth 356 ITR 451 (Gujarat – HC).

6.

After hearing the ld. DR and perusing the material on record and impugned order, we note that the Ld. CIT(A) has

7.

We also note that the assessee has not challenged the order of Ld. CIT(A) wherein the Ld. CIT(A) has partly sustained the addition to 27.46%. Under these circumstances, we are inclined to dismiss the Revenue’s appeal by upholding the order of Ld. CIT(A).

8.

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed.

Order pronounced in the open court on 18.02.2020.

More judgments on Section 139(1)

All 8,117 judgments and leading authorities on Section 139(1) →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →