HYDRAULIC TUBES AND VALVES CO.,MUMBAI vs. ITO 17 (1)(5), MUMBAI
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal found that a further addition of 8.5% was excessive given the assessee's declared gross profit and medical condition. Therefore, the addition was restricted to 6% of the alleged bogus purchases for both assessment years.
What were the facts?
The assessee, engaged in trading pipes and hardware, had its assessment reopened based on information from the Sales Tax Department. The Assessing Officer added 12.5% of alleged bogus purchases as profit, which the CIT(A) reduced to 8.5%. The assessee's business had been closed for years, and the assessee was medically incapacitated.
What were the issues?
The primary issue was the extent of addition to be made on account of alleged bogus purchases when the assessee's business was closed and the assessee was medically incapacitated.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “SMC”, BENCH
Before: SHRI R.C.SHARMA&
आदेश / O R D E R PER: R.C. SHARMA, A.M. These are the cross appeals filed by the assessee and revenue against the separate orders of the ld. CIT(A)-56, Mumbai dated respectively in the matter of order passed U/s 143(3) r.w.s. 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short, the Act).
Rival contentions have been heard and record perused. Facts in brief are that the assessee is engaged in business of trading of pipes and hardware. The assessment was reopened on the basis of information from the Sales Tax Department, thereafter the A.O. added 12.5% of the alleged bogus purchases as profit in the assessee’s income. By the impugned order, the ld. CIT(A) after giving detailed finding, restricted the addition to the extent of 8.5%. It was brought to our notice that the business of the assessee has been closed since last 7-8 years and the assessee is confined to bed because of various diseases. Medical certificates were also placed on record.
From the record I found that before the A.O., the assessee has produced purchases bills, delivery challan, copy of bank statement etc.
Keeping in view the gross profit declared by the assessee, further addition at 8.5% will be excessive, therefore, keeping in view the entirety of facts and circumstances of the case, we direct the A.O. to restrict the addition to the extent of 6% in both the years under consideration. I direct accordingly. the assessee are allowed in part.
Order pronounced in the open court on 04th February, 2020.
More judgments on Section 147
- ACIT Central Bilaspur, Bilaspur vs Arun Kumar Agrawal, SaktiITSSA 26/RPR/2025[2018-19]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2018-19
- Vinod Agrawal, Kawardha vs Assisstant Commissioner of Income Tax…ITA 666/RPR/2026[2019-20]Status: Heard21 Oct 2026AY 2019-20
- Sar Business Tradelink Private Limited… vs Income Tax Officer, Ward - 1(2), RaipurITA 599/RPR/2026[2014-15]Status: Heard21 Oct 2026AY 2014-15
- Tarunaben Maganlal Bhut, Navagam vs ITO Ward 2(2)(1), RajkotITA 673/RJT/2026[2024-25]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2024-25
- Neo Incorporation, Rajkot vs DCIT Circle- 1(2), RajkotITA 471/RJT/2026[2012-2013]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2012-2013
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- M/S. Nanda Contruction PVT. LTD., Angul vs. Additional Commissioner, GST And Central Excise Commissionerate, SundergarhOrissa · 28 Oct 2026
- M/S Utkal Suppliers,Ganjam vs. Assistant Commissioner Of CT And GST, Ganjam-I Circle,GanjamOrissa · 28 Oct 2026
- M/S Kotdwar Steel Limited vs. Office Of Hte Deputy CommissionerUttarakhand · 28 Oct 2026
- M/S Kotdwar Steel Limited vs. Office Of The Deputy CommissionerUttarakhand · 28 Oct 2026
- M/S Kotdwar Steel Limited vs. Office Of The Deputy CommissionerUttarakhand · 28 Oct 2026
