Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “D” BENCH, MUMBAI
Before: SHRI SAKTIJIT DEYAND SHRI RAJESH KUMAR
Date of Hearing – 08.01.2020 Date of Order – 15.01.2020
O R D E R PER SAKTIJIT DEY. J.M.
The captioned appeal has been filed by the Revenue challenging a common order, dated 27th August 2018, passed by the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)–1, Thane, pertaining to the assessment years 2010–11 and 2011–12. However, presently, we are concerned with the assessment year 2010–11 only.
2 Dinesh Madhubhai Dhedhi
When the appeal was called for hearing, neither the assessee nor any one was present on behalf of the assessee to represent the case. Even, there is no application filed by the assessee seeking adjournment of hearing. In such circumstances, we consider it appropriate to dispose of the appeal ex–parte qua the assessee after hearing the learned Departmental Representative and on the basis of material available on record.
The dispute in the present appeal is confined to the decision of learned Commissioner (Appeals) in restricting the disallowance on account of non–genuine purchases to 25% as against the disallowance of the entire purchase by the Assessing Officer.
Brief facts are, the assessee is an individual and is engaged in the business of trading in electrical goods. For the assessment year under consideration, the assessee filed his return of income on 26th September 2010, declaring total income of ` 2,31,000. Subsequently, on the basis of information received from the Sales Tax Department, Government of Maharashtra, through the office of the DGIT (Inv.), Pune, that the assessee is a beneficiary of accommodation bills provided by certain entities identified by the Sales Tax Department as hawala operators, the Assessing Officer re–opened the assessment under section 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short "the Act"). During the assessment proceedings, the Assessing Officer called upon
3 Dinesh Madhubhai Dhedhi the assessee to prove the genuineness of purchases of ` 10,82,311, claimed to have been made from seven parties, through proper documentary evidences. Though, the assessee furnished the purchase bills and ledger accounts as well as the bank statement, however, the Assessing Officer was of the view that the assessee was unable to prove the actual delivery of goods. Further, he observed, the notice issued under section 133(6) of the Act to verify the genuineness of purchases did not fructify as the concerned selling dealers were not found in given address. Thus, ultimately, the Assessing Officer added back the entire purchases of ` 10,82,311, by treating them as non– genuine. Being aggrieved with the aforesaid addition, the assessee preferred appeal before the first appellate authority.
Learned Commissioner (Appeals), after considering the submissions of the assessee, restricted the disallowance to 25% of the non–genuine purchases.
The learned Departmental Representative submitted, similar addition was made by the Assessing Officer in the Assessment Year 2011–12 and while deciding assessee’s appeal, learned Commissioner (Appeals) has restricted the addition to ` 5,90,340, considering the fact that the said amount representing the suppressed gross profit is higher than the quantum of 25% of the non–genuine purchases. She submitted, the aforesaid decision of the learned Commissioner
4 Dinesh Madhubhai Dhedhi (Appeals) has been upheld by the Tribunal while deciding Revenue’s appeal in ITA no.6183/Mum./2018, dated 28th November 2019.
We have considered the submissions of learned Departmental Representative and perused the material on record. Though, the Assessing Officer has made the addition of entire purchases treating them as non–genuine, however, learned Commissioner (Appeals) has restricted the addition to 25% of such purchases. As could be seen, similar addition was also made by the Assessing Officer in assessee’s own case for the assessment year 2011–12 and learned Commissioner (Appeals) having found that the suppressed gross profit is more than the quantum of 25% of non–genuine purchases had restricted the addition to the amount of suppressed gross profit. The aforesaid decision of learned Commissioner (Appeals) has been upheld by the Tribunal in the decision referred to above. Facts being identical, respectfully following the decision of the Co–ordinate Bench in assessee’s own case cited supra, we uphold the order of learned Commissioner (Appeals) on the issue. Grounds raised are dismissed.
In the result, Revenue’s appeal stands dismissed. Order pronounced in the open Court on