GHANSHYAM SOPARKAR,MUMBAI vs. ACIT - 21 (1), MUMBAI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 5251/MUM/2018Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 November 2019AY 2009-103 pages

In favour of the Revenue: the assessee's appeal was dismissed. From the AI summary of this appeal.

AI SummaryDismissed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal upheld the addition of the bogus purchase amount to the assessee's income. This was because the assessee failed to provide any correlative evidence of actual purchase and delivery of goods or their use in the manufacturing process.

What were the facts?

The assessee's appeal was against an order related to assessment year 2009-10. The assessment was reopened due to the assessee allegedly using accommodation bills for purchases amounting to Rs. 5,41,796, which were found to be bogus.

What were the issues?

Whether the addition made by the Assessing Officer on account of bogus purchases is justified. Whether the assessee provided sufficient evidence to prove the genuineness of purchases.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 143(3),Section 147

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “SMC” BENCH, MUMBAI

Before: SHRI R.C. SHARMA

Hearing: 04/11/2019

आदेश / O R D E R PER SHRI R C SHARMA (AM): This is an appeal by the assessee against the order of the Ld. CIT(A) for the A.Y 2009-10 in the matter of order passed u/s 143(3) r.w.s 147 of the Act. 2. Nobody appeared on behalf of the assessee in spite of issue and service of notice by RPAD. I found that on earlier occasion this appeal was fixed for hearing on 25.09.2019, and as per the request of the AR hearing was adjourned to . Shri Ghanshyam Soparkar, Mumbai. - 2 - 04.11.2019. Before us neither anybody appeared nor any adjournment petition was filed, accordingly the Bench decided to dispose the appeal after hearing the Ld. DR and considering material placed on record.

3.

I have gone through the orders of the authorities below and found that assessment was reopened on finding that assessee was involved in taking accommodation bill with regard to the purchases. The A.O found that assessee was engaged in manufacturing of engineering goods. Assessee has taken purchase bill of Rs. 5,41,796, which was found to be bogus. Accordingly, A.O added this amount in assessee’s income and the action of A.O was confirmed by the CIT(A). I found that no correlative evidence in the form of actual purchase and delivery of the goods at the premises of assessee could be produced either before the A.O or before the CIT(A). Lower authorities recorded a finding to the effect that assessee is a manufacturer, no details / proof of actual use of this items in the manufacturing process could be provided. No stock register of various new material was maintained nor any internal consumption details was produced before lower authorities. Accordingly, I do not find any reason to interfere in the findings recorded . Shri Ghanshyam Soparkar, Mumbai. - 3 - by the lower authorities for confirming the addition on account of bogus purchases.

4.

In the result the appeal of the assessee is dismissed.

More judgments on Section 147

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →