Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “SMC”, BENCH
Before: SHRI R.C.SHARMA, AM & SHRI VIKAS AWASTHY, JM
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “SMC”, BENCH MUMBAI
BEFORE SHRI R.C.SHARMA, AM & SHRI VIKAS AWASTHY, JM
ITA No. 6802/Mum/2018 (Assessment Year: 2011-12) A.C.I.T.-17(1), Mumbai Vs. Akbar Abdul Ali, Room No. 117, Aayakar Faiz & Co., Unit No. 5, Bhavan, M.K. Marg, Alahibaug, 75, A.R. Street, Mumbai-400020. Mumbai-400009. PAN/GIR No.AABPA 6866 F (Appellant) .. (Respondent)
C.O. No. 265/Mum/2019 (Arising out of ITA No. 6802/Mum/2018) (Assessment Year: 2011-12) Akbar Abdul Ali, Vs. A.C.I.T.-17(1), Mumbai Faiz & Co., Unit No. 5, Room No. 117, Aayakar Alahibaug, 75, A.R. Street, Bhavan, M.K. Marg, Mumbai-400009. Mumbai-400020. PAN/GIR No. AABPA 6866 F (Appellant) .. (Respondent)
Revenue by Shri Kumar Padmapani Bora (Sr.DR) Assessee by Shri N.R. Agarwal (AR) Date of Hearing 12/12/2019 Date of Pronouncement 19/12/2019 आदेश / O R D E R
PER: R.C. SHARMA, A.M. The appeal filed by the revenue and cross objection filed by the
assessee are directed against the order of the ld. CIT(A)-55, Mumbai
dated 04/09/2018 for the A.Y. 2011-12 in the matter of order passed U/s
143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short, the Act).
2 ITA No. 6802/Mum/2018 & CO 265/Mum/2019 ACIT Vs Akbar Abdul Ali 2. In this appeal, the revenue is aggrieved by the action of the ld.
CIT(A) for reducing the profit estimated on bogus purchases at 12.5%
from 15% whereas the assessee in the C.O. is aggrieved for upholding
the addition on account of bogus purchases estimated profit at 12.5%.
At the outset, the ld AR of the assessee placed on record the order
of the Tribunal in assessee’s own case for the A.Y.2009-10 dated
30/10/2015 wherein under similar facts and circumstances, the addition
made on account of bogus purchases was deleted by the Tribunal.
On the other hand, the ld Sr.DR has relied on the order passed by
the A.O.
We have considered the rival submissions and carefully gone
through the orders of the authorities below and found from the record
that to prove the genuineness of purchases, the assessee has filed
details of chart of movement of goods so purchased, their invoice with
LR, bank statement for payment, sales invoice etc.. It was also
submitted that all the suppliers were registered under sales/VAT laws
which were displaced on their invoices. The assessee has also verified
the registration numbers from Sales Tax Department, which was also
found to be correct. As per the ld AR, the assessee, as a prudent
business man, had received goods, made payment by account payee
cheques and purchased and sold the material again for which payments
3 ITA No. 6802/Mum/2018 & CO 265/Mum/2019 ACIT Vs Akbar Abdul Ali
were received. All these facts were accepted by the A.O., accordingly, no
addition is warranted.
From the record we also found that exactly similar issue of bogus
purchases was before the Tribunal in assessee’s own case for the A.Y.
2009-10 and vide order dated 30/10/2015, the Tribunal after having the
following observation have deleted the entire addition so made by the
A.O. as under:
“11. We have considered the rival contentions of both the parties and perused the material available on record. We are of the considered view that since the transaction has been made by the assessee with the respective parties through A/c payee cheques and has placed on record purchase bills, delivery challans and transport receipts. The assessee has also proved and placed on record the respective sale tax registration numbers of all the parties. Therefore, this clearly shows that the goods had actually been purchased and received by the assessee, therefore, these purchases should not have, by any stretch of imagination, be treated as bogus purchases. Nothing contrary has been brought to record to show that these invoice were self-made or fabricated and by placing on record all the aforementioned documents, the initial onus has already been sufficiently discharged by the assessee and once the initial onus is discharged then automatically onus shifts upon the other party to rebut and prove the documents to be forged or fabricated but in this respect no evidence has been led, therefore, keeping in view the aforementioned citation and respectfully following the same, we accept the Ground No. 1 in favour of assessee and set aside the order of CIT(A) thereby disallowing 15% of the purchases.
4 ITA No. 6802/Mum/2018 & CO 265/Mum/2019 ACIT Vs Akbar Abdul Ali Hence, the present ground of appeal of the assessee is accepted and the ground of appeal of the revenue is dismissed.”
As the facts and circumstances during the year under consideration are
pari materia, respectfully following the order of the Tribunal dated
30/10/2015 in assessee’s own case, we delete the addition so made by
the A.O.
In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed and cross
objection of the assessee is allowed.
Order pronounced in the open court on 19th December, 2019.
Sd/- Sd/- (VIKAS AWASTHY) (R.C.SHARMA) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Mumbai; Dated 19/12/2019 *Ranjan
Copy of the Order forwarded to : 1. The Appellant 2. The Respondent. 3. The CIT(A), Mumbai. 4. CIT 5. DR, ITAT, Mumbai 6. Guard file.
BY ORDER, स�या�पत ��त //True Copy//
(Asstt. Registrar) ITAT, Mumbai