Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “SMC” Bench, Mumbai
Before: Shri Shamim Yahya (AM)
This appeal by the assessee is directed against the order of learned CIT(A) dated 10.9.2018 pertaining to A.Y. 2009-10.
The issue raised is that learned CIT(A) erred in confirming the addition at the rate of 25% being Rs. 62,400/- of the purchases of Rs. 2,49,600/- on the basis of information received from sales tax department.
In this case the Assessing Officer has made 25% disallowance out of alleged hawala purchases of Rs. 2,49,600/- from M/s. Dipali Enterprises. While making assessment the Assessing Officer has referred to information from the sales tax department and non response from the parties the notice u/s. 133(6). Learned CIT(A) had confirmed the aforesaid addition.
Against the above order the assessee is in appeal before the ITAT.
I have heard both the counsel and perused the record. I note that the Assessing Officer has noted that the assessee has engaged into hawala purchases from Dipali Enterprises for an amount of Rs. 21,872/-. Thereafter
2 Jayesh H. Shah the Assessing Officer made addition on the basis of non-response from the party alleged to have supplied bogus bills without doubting sales. The Assessing Officer made disallowance of 25% of hawala purchases of Rs. 2,49,600/-. This was also confirmed by learned CIT(A).
I find that it is beyond comprehension as to how on a bogus bill of Rs. 21,872/- disallowance can be to the tune of 25% of Rs. 2,49,600/-. In my considered opinion without doubting sales such an addition without application of mined whatsoever is not at all sustainable. Accordingly, I set aside the orders of authorities below and delete the addition.
In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed.
Order has been pronounced in the Court on 14.2.2020.