Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, MUMBAI BENCH ‘SMC’, MUMBAI
Before: SHRI SHAMIM YAHYA, HONBLE]
PER SHRI SHAMIM YAHYA, AM
This appeal filed by the revenue and cross-objection filed by the assessee are directed against the order of the Ld. CIT(A) – 58, Mumbai dated 11.09.2018 for AY 2011-12 in the matter of order passed u/s 147 r.w.s. 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short, the Act).
C.O. No. 255/Mum/2019 Assessment Year: 2011-12 Nitin Nandkishor Bangad
The grievance of the assessee and the revenue relate to the addition made by the A.O. and partly deleted by the Ld. CIT(A) in respect of alleged bogus purchases. The A.O. has computed profit at 15.10% on the alleged bogus purchases and by the impugned order, the Ld. CIT(A) confirmed the addition by estimating income @ 5.25% of alleged bogus purchases.
Against the above order passed the appeal and cross-objection are before us. The learned counsel submitted that an identical facts this Tribunal in assessee’s own case for A.Y. 2009-10 by the order dated 09.12.2019 as held as under: 7. We have considered the rival submissions and carefully gone through the orders of the authorities below and found from the record that the assessee is engaged in the business of trading in hardware, electric goods and took kit. The assessee’s case was reopened on the information received from the Sales Tax Department regarding assessee obtained accommodation entries. After making enquiry, the AO made addition by estimating income at 15.10% on alleged bogus purchases. By the impugned order, the Ld. CIT(A) has dealt with the issue threadbare and after considering all the facts and circumstances of the case uphold addition to the extent of 5025% of the alleged bogus purchases. Neither the Ld. AR nor the Ld. Dr could persuade us to deviate from the finding and conclusion of the Ld. CIT(A), accordingly, we uphold the order of the Ld. CIT(A) for confirming the addition to the extent of 5025% on alleged bogus purchases. 8. In the result, both i.e. appeal of the revenue and cross-objection of the assessee are dismissed.
Referring to the above, learned counsel of the assessee contended that the same view should be adopted. Per contra, learned DR did not dispute this proposition. Accordingly, respectfully
C.O. No. 255/Mum/2019 Assessment Year: 2011-12 Nitin Nandkishor Bangad following the precedent as above, we confirmed the order of Ld. CIT(A) for the addition @ 5.25% on allegedly bogus purchases.