ITO-26(3)(5), MUMBAI vs. SHRI. WAJIDALI M H SHAIKH, MUMBAI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 443/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 CIT(A)'s order, restricting the addition to 12.5% of the alleged bogus purchases, as the revenue did not present any contradictory material.

What were the facts?

The Assessing Officer (AO) made a 100% addition for alleged bogus purchases. The CIT(A) restricted this addition to 12.5% based on judicial pronouncements.

What were the issues?

Whether the CIT(A) was justified in restricting the addition for bogus purchases to 12.5%.

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(2)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 Respondent: Shri Anoop Hiwase
Hearing: 27/01/2020Pronounced: 27/01/2020

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

This is an appeal filed by the revenue against the order of CIT(A) 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.

I have gone through the orders of the authorities below and found that AO had made 100% addition in respect of alleged bogus purchases which was restricted by CIT(A) to the extent of 12.5% after applying judicial pronouncements in case of Bholanath Poly FAB Pvt. Ltd 355 ITR 290 (GUJ) and Simit P Sheth 356 ITR 451. After considering all the facts, the CIT(A) has upheld the addition of 12.5% in respect of profit element embedded in such alleged bogus purchases. Detailed finding has been given by CIT(A) at para 7.4 to 7.7, which has not been controverted by bringing any positive material on record. Accordingly, we upheld the order of CIT(A) for restricting the addition to the extent of 12.5% on alleged bogus purchases.

3.

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 →