FORBES PHARM CHEM TECHNOLOGIES,MUMBAI vs. ITO - WD- 27 (1)(4), MUMBAI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 5473/MUM/2018Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 September 2019AY 2010-114 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 on account of bogus purchases, but restricted it to 6% of the purchase value, following its own precedent in the assessee's sister concern's case for AY 2011-12.

What were the facts?

The assessee firm was engaged in trading of chemical and pharmaceuticals items. Re-assessment proceedings were initiated due to alleged bogus purchases from four parties. Notices to these parties were unserved or returned unacknowledged.

What were the issues?

The primary issue was the estimation of addition on account of alleged bogus purchases made by the assessee. The validity of the addition and the quantum thereof were contested.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 143(3),Section 147,Section 148,Section 142(1),Section 133(6)

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 Appellant: Shri Mehul Shah-Ld. AR
For Respondent: Shri Ashutosh Rajhans-Ld.DR, Shri Mehul Shah-Ld. AR

Heard together (2 matters)

I.T.A. No.4971/Mum/2018
I.T.A. No.5473/Mum/2018

Read from the judgment's own cause title. This page is filed under one of them.

1.

These cross-appeals foe Assessment Year [AY] 2010-11 contest the order of Ld. Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals)-24 Mumbai, [in short referred to as ‘CIT(A)’], Appeal No. CIT(A)-24/IT-581/704/ITO- 27(1)(4)/2017-18 dated 09/05/2018. The only issue involved in the cross- appeals is estimation of addition on account of alleged bogus purchases. 2.1 Facts on record would reveal that the assessee being resident firm stated to be engaged in trading of chemical & pharmaceuticals items, was assessed for impugned AY u/s. 143(3) r.w.s. 147 on 10/11/2015 wherein the income of the assessee was determined at Rs.10.26 Lacs after sole addition of alleged bogus purchases for Rs.10.13 Lacs as against returned income of Rs.0.12 Lacs filed by the assessee on 17/09/2010 which was processed u/s.143(1). 2.2 Pursuant to receipt of certain information from investigation wing / Sales tax Department, Govt. of Maharashtra, it transpired that the assessee stood beneficiary of alleged bogus purchases to the tune of Rs.81.07 Lacs from 4 parties, the details of which has already been extracted at para-5.1 of the quantum assessment order. Accordingly, as per due process of law, re-assessment proceedings were initiated against the assessee u/s 147 by issuance of notice u/s 148 on 19/03/2015. The statutory notices u/s 143(2) & 142(1) were issued in due course of assessment proceedings wherein the assessee was directed to substantiate the purchase transactions.

Forbes Pharm Chem Technologies Assessment Year : 2010-11 2.3 To confirm the purchases transactions, notices u/s 133(6) were issued to all parties, however the same remained un-responded to or were returned back unserved by postal authorities with the remarks “not known”. Although the assessee defended the purchases, however, could not produce any of the supplier to confirm the purchase transactions. The attention was drawn to the fact that the payments were made through banking channels. However, not satisfied, the stated purchases were treated as non-genuine purchases and an estimated addition of 12.5% was made against the stated purchases. The learned first appellate authority, inter-alia, relying upon the decision of this Tribunal in assessee’s own case for AY 2011-12 restricted the additions to 6% which has given rise to cross- appeals before us.

3.

We have heard and considered the arguments of respective representatives.

4.

We find that the estimated addition of 6% is in accordance with the decision of this Tribunal in the case of assessee’s sister concern for AY 2011-12 order dated 27/04/2016. Nothing on record would suggest any change in material facts. Therefore, finding no infirmity in the impugned order, we dismiss both the appeals.

5.

Resultantly, both the appeals stand dismissed.

Order pronounced in the open court on 11th September, 2019. Sd/- Sd/- (Mahavir Singh) (Manoj Kumar Aggarwal) �ाियक सद� / Judicial Member लेखा सद� / Accountant Member

Forbes Pharm Chem Technologies Assessment Year : 2010-11

More judgments on Section 147

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →