ITO -WD- 3(3), THANE vs. SACHIN RAMESH BEHARE, THANE

PDF · subscribers
ITA 5061/MUM/2018Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 September 2019AY 2011-124 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 CIT(A)'s decision to restrict the disallowance to the Gross Profit Rate (28.21%) of the alleged bogus purchases, considering that sales turnover was not disputed and payments were made through banking channels.

What were the facts?

The assessee's income was assessed under Section 143(3) r.w.s. 147, with additions of Rs. 9.77 Lacs for alleged bogus purchases. The assessee failed to substantiate these purchases with documentary evidence or by producing suppliers.

What were the issues?

Whether the entire bogus purchases should be disallowed or only the profit element embedded in them, when the assessee failed to prove genuineness but had supporting sale transactions.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 143(3),Section 147,Section 148,Section 142(1)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “SMC” BENCH, MUMBAI

Before: HON’BLE SHRI MAHAVIR SINGH, JM & HON’BLE SHRI MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL, AM

For Respondent: Shri Akhtar H. Ansari-Ld.DR

आदेश / O R D E R

Per Bench: -

1.

Aforesaid appeals by revenue for Assessment Year [AY] 2011-12 contest the order of Ld. Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals)-2, Thane,

Sachin Ramesh Behare [in short referred to as ‘CIT(A)’], dated 27/06/2018 on following grounds of appeal: - “1. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) was justified in not appreciating the law correctly that once the purchases are unverifiable/not genuine/ bogus, the sarae should have been disallowed in entirety?

2. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) was justified in restricting the disallowance to 28.21% of the bogus purchases despite the fact that even during appellate/proceedings the assessee failed to substantiate the genuineness of the purchases with supporting documentary evidences (para 6.2 on page(6) of order of CIT(A). 3.Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) was justified in restricting the disallowance to 28.21% of the bogus purchases despite the fact that even during the appellate proceedings the assessee failed to substantiate the physical delivery of the goods with supporting documentary evidences (para 6.2 on page(6) of order of CIT(A).

4. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) was justified in restricting the disallowance to 28.21% of the bogus purchases despite the fact that even during the appellate proceedings the assessee failed to reconcile the quantitywise details of purchases from the hawala parties visa-a-visa sales thereof (para 6.2 on page(6) of order of CIT(A)).

We have heard and considered the arguments advanced by both the sides. 2.1 Facts on record would reveal that the assessee being resident individual stated to be engaged in the business of interior decoration was assessed u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 on 11/03/2016 wherein the assessee was saddled with additions of Rs.9.77 Lacs on account of alleged bogus purchases. Pursuant to receipt of certain information, it transpired the assessee made purchases of Rs.9.77 Lacs from 3 suspicious entities, the details of which has already been extracted at para-5.1 of the quantum assessment order. Accordingly, as per due process of law, the case was reopened vide issuance of notice u/s 148 on Sachin Ramesh Behare 28/07/2014 followed by statutory notices u/s 143(2) & 142(1), wherein the assessee was directed to substantiate the purchases. 2.2 Although the assessee defended the purchases, the assessee could not produce any of the suppliers to confirm the transactions. Finding that the assessee remained unsuccessful in discharging the primary onus, the stated purchases were disallowed and added to the income of the assessee. The learned first appellate authority restricted the additions to 28.21% of alleged bogus purchases, being Gross profit Rate reflected by the assessee during the year. Aggrieved, the revenue is in further appeal before us. It appears that the assessee has not preferred any further appeal.

3.

We are of the considered opinion there could be no sale without actual purchase of material keeping in view the assessee’s nature of business. The assessee was in possession of primary purchases documents and the payments to suppliers were through banking channels. The sales turnover reflected by the assessee has not been disturbed / disputed by Ld. AO. However, at the same time, the assessee miserably failed to produce any of the supplier. Under such circumstances, the additions which could be sustained, was to account for profit element embedded in these purchase transactions to factorize for profit earned by assessee against possible purchase of material in the grey market and undue benefit of VAT against such bogus purchases, which Ld. first appellate authority has rightly done. Therefore, concurring with the approach of learned first appellate authority

Sachin Ramesh Behare in restricting the additions to the extent of Gross Profit Rate reflected by the assessee, we dismiss the appeal. 4. In result, the appeal stands dismissed. Order pronounced in the open court on 16th September, 2019. Sd/- Sd/- (Mahavir Singh) (Manoj Kumar Aggarwal) �ाियक सद� / Judicial Member लेखा सद� / Accountant Member

More judgments on Section 147

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →