ACIT - 27(1), NAVI MUMBAI vs. BHAGWATI INTERIORS, MUMBAI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 4979/MUM/2018Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 September 2019AY 2012-134 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 held that while the assessee failed to confirm the transactions, the addition should account for the profit element embedded in the purchases. The addition was rightly restricted to 12.5% of the disputed purchases.

What were the facts?

The Revenue appealed against the deletion of additions made for alleged bogus purchases. The assessee had made purchases from entities listed as suspicious by the Sales Tax Department and failed to produce suppliers for confirmation.

What were the issues?

Whether the addition for bogus purchases should be the entire amount or only the profit element, and whether the CIT(A) erred in restricting the addition.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 143(3),Section 147

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Cases cited in this judgment(2)Show list

Detected automatically from the text. Citations are also linked where they appear in the judgment. The count shows how many other judgments on BharatTax rely on the same authority.

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “SMC” BENCH, MUMBAI

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

For Appellant: Shri Prateek Jain-Ld.AR
For Respondent: Shri Ashutosh Rajhans-Ld.DR, Shri Prateek Jain-Ld.AR

आदेश / O R D E R

Per Bench: -

1.

Aforesaid appeal by revenue for Assessment Year [AY] 2012-13 contest the order of Ld. Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals)-24

M/s. Bhagwati Interiors Mumbai, [in short referred to as ‘CIT(A)’], Appeal No. CIT(A)-24/IT- 150/256/AC-27(1)/2017-18 dated 24/05/2018 qua deletion of certain additions on account of alleged bogus purchases. The grounds raised by revenue read as under: -

1. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in deleting the addition of Rs.4,48,016/- made by the Assessing Officer on account of bogus purchases, without appreciating the fact that the assessee had failed to produce bills, vouchers and other documentary evidences in support of his claim and without considering the latest Apex Court decision in the case of N K Protein Ltd. wherein it is held that once it is proved that the purchases are bogus then addition should be made on entire purchases and not on profit element embedded in such purchases.

2. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in estimating the profit from Hawala Purchases by disallowing only Rs.64,002/- being 12.5% of the bogus purchases as even the basic onus of producing transport bills, delivery challans etc. were not fulfilled by the assessee.

2.1 Facts on record would reveal that the assessee being resident firm stated to be engaged as contractor, was assessed for impugned AY u/s. 143(3) on 19/03/2015 4 r.w.s. 147 wherein the income of the assessee was determined at Rs.4.83 Lacs after sole addition of alleged bogus purchases for Rs.5.12 Lacs as against returned loss of Rs.0.28 Lacs filed by the assessee on 31/03/2014. 2.2 Upon perusal of purchases made by the assessee, it transpired that the assessee made aggregate purchase of Rs.5.12 Lacs from two entities which were listed as suspicious Hawala Dealers by Sales Tax Department. The assessee failed to produce any of the party to substantiate the purchase transactions which led Ld. AO to disallow these purchases and accordingly the same were added to the income of the assessee.

M/s. Bhagwati Interiors 2.3 The learned first appellate authority, after considering assessee’s submissions and relying upon the decision of Hon’ble Gujarat High Court rendered in CIT V/s Simit P. Sheth [356 ITR 451] restricted the addition to 12.5% of disputed purchases which came to Rs.64,002/- and deleted the balance additions. Aggrieved, the revenue is in further appeal before us. It appears that the assessee is not in further appeal.

3.

The respective representatives have advanced arguments, which we have duly considered.

4.

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. As noted by first appellate authority, the assessee was in possession of primary purchase 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 to confirm the transactions. 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 in restricting the additions to 12.5%, we dismiss the appeal. So far as the decision of Hon’ble Gujarat High Court rendered in N.K. Industries Ltd. Vs DCIT [72 Taxmann.com 289] is concerned, we find that the facts

M/s. Bhagwati Interiors of that case has already been distinguished by Hon’ble Bombay High Court in Pr.CIT Vs. M/s Mohommad Haji Adam & Co. [ITA No.1004 & others of 2016, dated 11/02/2019] wherein Hon’ble Court has approved the estimation, on similar factual matrix, based on Gross Profit Rate. 5. In result, the appeal stands dismissed.

Order pronounced in the open court on 09th September, 2019.

Sd/- Sd/- (Mahavir Singh) (Manoj Kumar Aggarwal) �ाियक सद� / Judicial Member लेखा सद� / Accountant Member मुंबई Mumbai; िदनांकDated : 09/09/2019 Sr.PS:-Jaisy Varghese आदेश की �ितिलिप अ�ेिषत/Copy of the Order forwarded to : अपीलाथ�/ The Appellant 1. ��थ�/ The Respondent 2. आयकरआयु�(अपील) / The CIT(A) 3. आयकरआयु�/ CIT– concerned 4. िवभागीय�ितिनिध, आयकरअपीलीयअिधकरण, मुंबई/ DR, ITAT, Mumbai 5. गाड�फाईल / Guard File 6.

More judgments on Section 147

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →