INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 26(2)(3), MUMBAI vs. MUBARAK HUSSAIN SHAIKH, MUMBAI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 527/MUM/2019Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 February 2020AY 2011-123 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 in the preceding year, the addition was restricted to 10%. However, since the assessee did not appeal the CIT(A)'s order reducing the addition to 12.5%, the Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s order.

What were the facts?

The Assessing Officer (AO) received information about the assessee obtaining bogus purchase bills and reopened the assessment. The AO estimated profit at 25% on alleged bogus purchases and added it to the assessee's income. The CIT(A) restricted this addition to 12.5%.

What were the issues?

Whether the addition on account of bogus purchases should be further reduced below the 12.5% confirmed by the CIT(A), considering the Tribunal's decision in the preceding year.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 143(3),Section 147

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “SMC”, BENCH

Before: SHRI R.C.SHARMAShri

For Appellant: Shri Awadhesh Kumar (AR)
For Respondent: Shri R.K. Gubgotra (DR), Shri Awadhesh Kumar (AR)
Hearing: 03/02/2020Pronounced: 04/02/2020

आदेश / O R D E R PER: R.C. SHARMA, A.M. This is the appeal filed by the revenue against the order of the ld. CIT(A)-38, Mumbai dated 13/08/2018 for the A.Y. 2011-12 in the matter of order passed U/s 143(3) r.w.s. 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short, the Act).

2.

Rival contentions have been heard and record perused. Facts in brief are that the assessee is engaged in manufacturing of washers etc.. the A.O. got information from Sales Tax Department regarding the assessee taking bogus purchase bills. After reopening the assessment,

1.

ITO Vs Shri Mubarak Hussain Shaikh the A.O. estimated profit @ 25% on the alleged bogus purchases and added the same in assessee’s income. By the impugned order, the ld. CIT(A) has restricted the addition to the extent of 12.5%.

3.

The ld AR of the assessee placed on record the order of the Tribunal in assessee’s own case for the immediate preceding year 2010- 11 dated 23/05/2018 wherein the Tribunal have restricted the addition to the extent of 10%. It was the request of the ld AR that the facts and circumstances during the year under consideration are same as was decided by the Tribunal in A.Y. 2010-11. However, in this case, the assessee has not filed any appeal against the order of the ld. CIT(A) restricting addition to the extent of 12.5%, accordingly, I cannot give any further relief by reducing the G.P. below 12.5%. Accordingly, I uphold the order passed by the ld. CIT(A).

4.

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed.

Order pronounced in the open court on 04th February, 2020.

More judgments on Section 147

All 49,210 judgments and leading authorities on Section 147 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →