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 Shri
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “SMC”, BENCH MUMBAI
BEFORE SHRI R.C.SHARMA, AM & SHRI VIKAS AWASTHY, JM
ITA No. 6250/Mum/2018 (Assessment Year: 2009-10) Income Tax Officer Vs. Shri Nitin Nandkishor 17(2)(4), Bangad, Mumbai. 59, Gaya Building, 109 Y.M. Road, Masjid Bunder, Mumbai-400003. PAN/GIR No.ABAPB 4356 P (Appellant) .. (Respondent)
C.O. No. 254/Mum/2019 (Arising out of ITA No. 6250/Mum/2018) (Assessment Year: 2009-10) Shri Nitin Nandkishor Bangad, Vs. Income Tax Officer 59, Gaya Building, 109 Y.M. 17(2)(4), Road, Masjid Bunder, Mumbai. Mumbai-400003. PAN/GIR No. ABAPB 4356 P (Appellant) .. (Respondent)
Revenue by Shri Kumar Padmapani Bora (DR) Assessee by Shri Vimal Punmiya (AR) Date of Hearing 02/12/2019 Date of Pronouncement 09/12/2019 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)-58, Mumbai
dated 10/08/2018 for the A.Y. 2009-10 in the matter of order passed U/s
143(3) r.w.s. 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short, the Act).
2 ITA No. 6250/Mum/2018 & CO 254/Mum/2019 ITO Vs Nitin Nandkishor Bangad 2. The grievance of the assessee and the revenue relate to the
addition made by the A.O. and partly deleted by the ld. CIT(A) in respect
of alleged bogus purchases. The A.O. has computed profit at 15.10% on
the alleged bogus purchases and by the impugned order, the ld. CIT(A)
confirmed the addition by estimating income @ 5.25% of alleged bogus
purchases. The precise finding of the ld. CIT(A) is at page No. 2 to 7 of
his appellate order.
It was argued by the ld AR of the assessee that the tax effect of
the revenue appeal is less than Rs. 50.00 lacs, therefore, in terms of
CBDT Circular No. 17 of 2019 dated 08.08.2019, the appeal of the
revenue deserves to be dismissed.
With regard to merit of the addition sustained by the ld. CIT(A) to
the extent of 5.25% on alleged bogus purchases, it was contention of
the ld AR that the assessee has all the bills of purchases, all payments
made through account payee cheque, supplier provided all identity to
bank following KYC norms and all sales of assessee were accepted. He
also contended that the assessee earned GP ratio as detailed hereunder
for last three years:
Assessment Year %GP 2006-07 11.99 2007-08 16.57 2008-09 16.76 2009-10 14.23
3 ITA No. 6250/Mum/2018 & CO 254/Mum/2019 ITO Vs Nitin Nandkishor Bangad 5. The ld AR has further argued that the assessee’s books of account
were not rejected u/s 145(3) of the Act by the ld. CIT(A). In the
immediately preceding year i.e. assessment year 2008-09, the assessee
earned GP ratio of 16.76% on total turnover, while for the year under
consideration GP ratio earned was 14.23%. End of justice will be met in
this case if GP ratio of 5.25% on alleged bogus purchases is added to
income of the assessee against which credit for the declared GP ratio
should be granted.
On the other hand, the ld DR has relied on the order of 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 the assessee is engaged in the business of trading in hardware,
electric goods and tool kit. The assessee’s case was reopened on the
information received from the Sales Tax Department regarding assessee
obtained accommodation entries. After making enquiry, the A.O. made
addition by estimating income at 15.10% on alleged bogus purchases.
By the impugned order, the ld. CIT(A) has dealt with the issue
threadbare and after considering all the facts and circumstances of the
case uphold addition to the extent of 5.25% of the alleged bogus
purchases. Neither the ld. AR nor the ld DR could persuade us to deviate
from the finding and conclusion of the ld. CIT(A), accordingly, we uphold
4 ITA No. 6250/Mum/2018 & CO 254/Mum/2019 ITO Vs Nitin Nandkishor Bangad the order of the ld. CIT(A) for confirming the addition to the extent of
5.25% on alleged bogus purchases.
In the result, both i.e. appeal of the revenue and cross objection
of the assessee are dismissed.
Order pronounced in the open court on 09th December, 2019.
Sd/- Sd/- (VIKAS AWASTHY) (R.C.SHARMA) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Mumbai; Dated 09/12/2019 *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.
स�या�पत ��त //True Copy// BY ORDER,
(Asstt. Registrar) ITAT, Mumbai