ITO 17 (2)(4), MUMBAI vs. NITIN NANDKISHOR BANGAD, MUMBAI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 6693/MUM/2018Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 January 2020AY 2011-123 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 followed its own precedent for a prior assessment year where an identical issue was decided. It upheld the CIT(A)'s order confirming the addition at 5.25% of the alleged bogus purchases.

What were the facts?

The Assessing Officer (AO) made an addition on account of alleged bogus purchases. The CIT(A) confirmed the addition by estimating income at 5.25% of the alleged bogus purchases. The appeal and cross-objection were filed against this order.

What were the issues?

The primary issue was the quantum of addition to be made on account of alleged bogus purchases after the AO's estimation and CIT(A)'s partial deletion.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 147,Section 143(3)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, MUMBAI BENCH ‘SMC’, MUMBAI

Before: SHRI SHAMIM YAHYA, HONBLE]

Heard together (2 matters)

I.T.A. No. 6693/Mum/2018
C.O. No. 255/Mum/2019

Read from the judgment's own cause title. This page is filed under one of them.

PER SHRI SHAMIM YAHYA, AM

1.

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

2.

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.

3.

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.

4.

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.

More judgments on Section 147

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →