AKRUTI GEMS,MUMBAI vs. ITO 32(1)(1), MUMBAI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 5353/MUM/2018Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 November 2019AY 2012-133 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 found that the Assessing Officer had conducted a thorough inquiry and reasonably upheld the addition. The CIT(A) had also confirmed the AO's action after considering judicial pronouncements and detailed facts.

What were the facts?

The assessee filed an appeal against the CIT(A)'s order upholding an addition of 8.16% on account of bogus purchases. The assessee did not appear for the hearing, nor did they file an adjournment petition.

What were the issues?

Whether the addition made by the Assessing Officer on account of bogus purchases was justified and if the CIT(A) erred in confirming it.

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: 06/11/2019Pronounced: 13/11

आदेश / O R D E R PER R.C. SHARMA (AM): This is an appeal filed by the assessee against the order of the Ld. CIT(A) for the A.Y 2012-13, in the matter of order passed u/s 143(3) r.w.s 147 of the IT Act. In this appeal the assessee is aggrieved for upholding addition of 12.5% in respect of bogus purchases.

1.

. Akruti Gems, Mumbai. - 2 - 2. Nobody appeared on behalf of the assessee nor any adjournment petition was filed. From the record, I found that even on earlier occasion, when the appeal was fixed for hearing on 07.10.2019 and 09.10.2019, nobody appeared on behalf of the assessee and the matter was accordingly adjourned. Under these facts and circumstances bench decided to dispose the appeal after hearing the Ld. DR and considering the material placed on record.

3.

I have gone through the orders of the authorities below and found that the assessment was re-opened on finding that assessee was involved in the entering into bogus purchase transaction. After giving due opportunity the A.O found that assessee has taken a bogus purchase bill of 2.50 crores after making full enquiry the A.O upheld the addition to the extent of 8.16% of non-genuine purchases. By the impugned order the CIT(A) confirmed the action of the A.O after recording detailed finding and considering various judicial pronouncements.

4.

I have carefully gone through the orders of the authorities below and found that A.O had made full enquiry and thereafter very reasonably upheld the addition only to the extent of 8.16% of non-genuine purchases. The CIT(A) . Akruti Gems, Mumbai. - 3 - has confirmed the action of the A.O after considering various judicial pronouncement on the issue and after considering the detailed facts noted by the A.O. I do not find any reason to interfere in the order of the CIT(A).

5.

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 →

Latest GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →