ITO WARD 19(3)(5), MUMBAI vs. M/S.VALSONS METAL, MUMBAI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 6591/MUM/2018Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 February 2020AY 2010-113 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 noted that a co-ordinate bench had already adjudicated the assessee's cross-appeals, further restricting the disallowance to 6.5% of bogus purchases. Therefore, the Revenue's appeals were dismissed.

What were the facts?

The Revenue appealed against the CIT(A)'s order restricting disallowance on alleged bogus purchases to 12.5%. The assessee had also filed cross-appeals on the same issue.

What were the issues?

Whether the Revenue's appeal against the CIT(A)'s partial relief on bogus purchases is maintainable when a co-ordinate bench has already granted further relief to the assessee.

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, MUMBAI BENCH “SMC”, MUMBAI

Before: SHRI R.C.SHARMA & SHRI VIKAS AWASTHY

For Appellant: Shri Kumar Padmapani Bora
For Respondent: Shri Vimal Punmiya
Hearing: 09/12/2019Pronounced: 11/02/2020

These two appeals by the Revenue for assessment years 2010-11 and 2011-12 are directed against the order of Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeals)-29, Mumbai ( in short ‘the CIT(A) ) for the respective assessment years. Both the impugned orders are of even date i.e. 01/08/2018. Since the issues involved in both appeals are identical, these appeals are are taken up together for adjudication and are disposed of by this common order.

(A.Y.2010-11) ITA NO.6592/Mum/2018(A.Y.2011-12)

2.

Shri Vimal Punmiya, appearing on behalf of the assessee submitted at the outset that the cross appeals of the assessee i.e.ITA No.5831/Mum/2018 for assessment year 2010-11 and for assessment year 2011-12 on the issue of bogus purchases have been adjudicated by Co- ordinate Bench of the Tribunal vide order dated 30/10/2019. The Tribunal has modified the order of CIT(A) by restricting the addition to 6.5% of the total bogus purchases determined by the Assessing Officer. In the present set of appeals the Revenue has assailed the findings of CIT(A) in restricting disallowance on alleged bogus purchases @ 12.5%. Thus, in the light of decision of Tribunal in the appeals by the assessee for the same assessment years, the appeals of the Revenue are liable to be dismissed.

3.

Shri Kumar Padmapani Bora, representing the Department fairly admitted that the cross appeals by the assessee for assessment year 2010-11 and 2011- 12 have been adjudicated by the Tribunal independently.

4.

We have heard the submissions made by rival sides and have perused the orders of authorities below. In assessment proceedings, the Assessing Officer had made disallowance of bogus purchases @25%. In first appeal, the CIT(A) restricted the disallowance to 12.5%. The Tribunal in appeal by the assessee granted further relief by restricting disallowance to 6.5% of the total bogus purchases. The Revenue in the present set of appeals has assailed the findings of CIT(A) in granting relief to the assessee. Since, the Co-ordinate Bench of the Tribunal has already adjudicated this issue by granting further

(A.Y.2010-11) ITA NO.6592/Mum/2018(A.Y.2011-12) relief to the assessee , the present appeals by the Revenue are liable to be dismissed. We hold and direct accordingly.

5.

In the result, both these appeals by the revenue are dismissed.

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →