OILWELL OIL CENTRE,MUMBAI vs. ITO, 27(2)(3), MUMBAI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 725/MUM/2019Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 February 2020AY 2011-123 pages
AI SummaryPartly Allowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal found that the assessee had provided details of purchases, sales, and stock registers, and there was a one-to-one tally of purchases. Considering the assessee's GP and the nature of business, the Tribunal directed the AO to restrict the addition to 10%.

What were the facts?

The assessee, engaged in trading edible oil and ghee, was found to have made bogus purchases based on information from the Sales Tax Department. The Assessing Officer (AO) estimated profit at 12.5% on these purchases, which was confirmed by the CIT(A).

What were the issues?

Whether the addition of 12.5% on account of bogus purchases was justified, and if not, what would be a reasonable addition based on the assessee's GP and business facts.

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.SHARMA

For Appellant: Shri Jitendra Singh (Adv)
For Respondent: Shri R.K. Gubgotra (JCIT-DR)
Hearing: 04/02/2020Pronounced: 04/02/2020

Assessee by Shri Jitendra Singh (Adv) Revenue by Shri R.K. Gubgotra (JCIT-DR) Date of Hearing 04/02/2020 Date of Pronouncement 04/02/2020 आदेश / O R D E R PER: R.C. SHARMA, A.M. This appeal by the assessee is directed against the order dated 20/12/2018 of ld. CIT(A)-25, Mumbai 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.

In this appeal, the assessee is aggrieved for confirming addition of 12.5% in respect of bogus purchases.

3.

Rival contentions have been heard and record perused. Facts in brief are that the assessee is engaged in the business of trading of edible oil and ghee. The A.O. got information from the Sales Tax

M/s Oilwell Oil Centre Vs ITO Department regarding bogus purchases bill taken by the assessee.

The A.O. made addition by estimating profit at 12.5% on such bogus purchases. By the impugned order, the ld. CIT(A) has confirmed the action of the A.O. against which the assessee is in appeal before the ITAT.

4.

It was contended by the ld AR of the assessee that the assessee has filed details of purchases, corresponding sales, stock register and delivery challan etc.. However, no defect was fond in all these details. He further contended that the assessee was having average G.P. of 4% in the last three years, therefore, further addition of 12.5% was not justified.

5.

On the other hand, the ld DR has contended that the A.O. has very reasonably estimated profit at 12.5% after ascertaining that the assessee has not produced bills from the supplier from whom he has actually purchased the goods.

6.

I have considered the rival contentions and carefully gone through the orders of the authorities below and found from the record that the assessee has filed details of purchases made by him alongwith stock register, delivery challans, evidence of dispatch.

There was one to one tally of purchases and hence, keeping in view the G.P. shown by the assessee, a further addition of 12.5% will be M/s Oilwell Oil Centre Vs ITO excessive. Keeping in view the totality of facts and circumstances and the nature of assessee’s business, I direct the A.O. to restrict addition to the extent of 10%. I direct accordingly.

7.

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed in part.

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 →