JAYESH H. SHAH,MUMBAI vs. ACIT- 25(2)(4), MUMBAI

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

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.