ITO 6(3)(1), MUMBAI vs. IDEEN FURNITURE PVT. LTD, MUMBAI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 440/MUM/2019Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 January 2020AY 2010-112 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 upheld the order of the CIT(A), finding no reason to deviate from the CIT(A)'s findings regarding the restricted addition. The appeal filed by the revenue was dismissed.

What were the facts?

The Assessing Officer (AO) reopened the assessment and added the entire amount of alleged bogus purchases to the assessee's income. The CIT(A) restricted the addition to 25% of the alleged bogus purchases.

What were the issues?

The primary issue was the extent to which an addition on account of bogus purchases should be sustained when the CIT(A) had already restricted it based on judicial precedents.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 143(3),Section 147

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Cases cited in this judgment(1)Show list

Detected automatically from the text. Citations are also linked where they appear in the judgment. The count shows how many other judgments on BharatTax rely on the same authority.

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

Before: SHRI R.C. SHARMA

For Appellant: Shri Mahesh Saboo
For Respondent: Shri Anoop Hiwase, Shri Mahesh Saboo
Hearing: 07/01/2020Pronounced: 27/01/2020

O R D E R PER R.C. SHARMA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER

This appeal filed by the revenue is against the order of CIT(A)-12, Mumbai for the A.Y.2010-11 in the matter of order passed u/s.143(3) r.w.s. 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961.

2.

Revenue is aggrieved for upholding the addition on account of bogus purchases to the extent of 12.5% in place of 100% made by the AO.

3.

I have gone through the orders of the authorities below and found that the AO reopened assessment on finding that assessee has made bogus purchases of Rs.14,463/-. Accordingly, he added entire amount in assessee’s income.

4.

By the impugned order, CIT(A) has restricted the addition to the extent of 25% of the alleged bogus purchases after considering the facts and circumstances and applying judicial pronouncements in case of NK Proteins Ltd. 250 Taxman 22 (SC). Nothing was placed before me to persuade me to deviate from the findings of CIT(A) as contained at para 42 & 43 of his appellate order. Accordingly, I uphold the order of CIT(A).

5.

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed.

Order pronounced in the open court on this 27/01/2020

More judgments on Section 147

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →