ACIT 21 (1), MUMBAI vs. ANAND PRABHAKAR KHANOLKAR, MUMBAI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 5971/MUM/2018Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai07 January 2020AY 2009-102 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 deletion of the addition, noting that the purchases were of machinery and no depreciation was claimed on it. Therefore, the CIT(A) was correct in deleting the addition.

What were the facts?

The Revenue appealed against the deletion of an addition of Rs. 90,000/- made on account of bogus purchases. The Assessing Officer had made a 100% addition based on information from the sales tax department.

What were the issues?

Whether the addition on account of bogus purchases is justified when the purchases were of machinery and no depreciation was claimed.

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “SMC” Bench, Mumbai

Before: Shri Shamim Yahya (AM) & Shri Pawan Singh (JM)

For Appellant: Shri Ojas Shah
For Respondent: Shri Akhatar H. Ansari
Hearing: 26.11.2019Pronounced: 07.01.2020

Per Shamim Yahya (AM) :- This is an appeal by the Revenue wherein the Revenue is aggrieved that learned CIT(A) has deleted the addition of Rs. 90,000/- being disallowance on account of bogus purchases vide order dated 30.7.2018 pertaining to A.Y. 2009-10.

2.

In this case the assessment was reopened upon information from sales tax department that assessee has made purchases from bogus dealers. The Assessing Officer in this case has made 100% addition on account of bogus purchases amounting to Rs. 90,000/-.

3.

Upon assessee’s appeal learned CIT(A) has noted that the said purchase was purchase of machinery and no depreciation on it was even claimed. Hence, she deleted the addition.

4.

Against the above order the Revenue is in appeal before the ITAT. We have heard both the counsel and perused the records. We find that when the 2 Shri Anand Prabhakar Khanolkar purchase has been debited to plant and machinery and no depreciation is claimed, learned CIT(A) is correct in deleting the addition. Hence, we uphold the same.

5.

In the result, this appeal filed by the Revenue stands dismissed. Order has been pronounced in the Court on 7.1.2020.

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →