Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “G” BENCH, MUMBAI
Before: HON’BLE SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN, JM & HON’BLE SHRI MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL, AM
: Shri Hari S. Raheja- Ld.AR अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/ Appellant by : Chaudhary Arun Kumar Singh- Ld. DR ू"यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent by सुनवाईक"तार"ख/ : 09/07/2019 Date of Hearing घोषणाक"तार"ख / : 15/07/2019 Date of Pronouncement आदेश / O R D E R Manoj Kumar Aggarwal (Accountant Member): - 1. Aforesaid appeal by assessee for Assessment Year [in short referred to as ‘AY’] 2011-12 contest the order of Ld. Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals)-26, Mumbai, [in short referred to as ‘CIT(A)’], Appeal No. CIT(A)- 2 Sahebrao S. Khilari Assessment Year-2011-12 26/IT/230/2016-17 dated 20/03/2018 qua confirmation of certain additions on account of alleged bogus purchases. For this the assessee has raised Ground Nos. 1 to 7. Ground No. 8 has not been pressed before us whereas Ground No. 9 is general in nature. 2.1 Briefly stated, the assessee being resident individual engaged as Civil Contractor was assessed u/s. 143(3) r.w.s.147 on 02/11/2016 wherein the income of the assessee was determined at Rs.377.12 Lacs after certain additions as against returned income of Rs.57.49 Lacs filed by the assessee on 30/09/2011. The original assessment was framed u/s. 143(3) on 31/12/2013 determining total income at Rs.372.08 Lacs. 2.2 Pursuant to receipt of certain information from DGIT (Investigation) / Sales Tax Authorities, it transpired that the assessee stood beneficiary of hawala purchase bills aggregating to Rs.40.28 Lacs stated to be procured from 3 suspicious dealers, the details of which have already been extracted in para 4 of the quantum assessment order. Accordingly, the case was re- opened by issue of notice u/s. 148 on 07/01/2016 which was followed by statutory notices u/s. 143(2) and 142(1). 2.3 In defense of purchases transactions, the assessee submitted ledger extracts, copies of invoices etc. However, summons issued u/s. 133(6) to all the parties remained un-responded. The assessee also failed to produce the parties. The assessee also could not submit transport receipts / lorry receipts / octroi receipts in support of delivery of material. Finally, not convinced with documentary evidences, Ld. Assessing Officer estimated additions of 12.5% against these purchases. The same resulted into an 3 Sahebrao S. Khilari Assessment Year-2011-12 addition of Rs.5.03 Lacs in the hands of the assessee. The stand of Ld. AO, upon confirmation by first appellate authority, is under challenge before us.
The Ld. Authorized Representative for Assessee [AR], placed reliance on the decision of this Tribunal rendered in other cases of associated concerns of the assessee, to submit that estimations have been restricted to 6% and therefore, the same view may be taken in the matter. The Ld. DR submitted that no interference would be required in the impugned order.
Upon perusal of Tribunal order in dated 31/12/2018 for AY 2010-11 and ITA No.279 & 5950/Mum/2018 dated 04/04/2019 for AY 2011-12 in the case of Khilari Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd., we find that the impugned additions have been estimated at 6% of alleged bogus purchases. Therefore, without delving much deeper into the issue and following the stand of Tribunal in the case of associated concerns of the assessee, we accept the estimated additions of 6% of alleged bogus purchases which comes to Rs.2,41,726/-. The orders of lower authorities stand modified to that extent. The grounds of appeal
stand partly allowed.
5. The appeal stands partly allowed in terms of our above order.
Order pronounced in the open court on 15th July, 2019. (Sandeep Gosain) (Manoj Kumar Aggarwal) "ाियक सद" / Judicial Member लेखा सद" / Accountant Member