SHIVANAND KOMAL SINGH,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CEN CIR 6, MUMBAI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 1407/MUM/2017Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 July 2019AY 2006-073 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 noted that the assessee's own case for subsequent assessment years had been dismissed by a co-ordinate bench on similar grounds. The Tribunal found no merit in the assessee's grounds of appeal.

What were the facts?

The assessee's appeal was against the CIT(A)'s order upholding an addition of 1% commission on alleged bogus bills. The assessee had also challenged the invocation of Section 153C of the Income Tax Act.

What were the issues?

The validity of invoking Section 153C and the addition made on account of bogus bills were the key issues.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 153C

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Cases cited in this judgment(1)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, MUMBAI BENCH “E”, MUMBAI

Before: Shri Pawan Singh & Shri G Manjunatha

For Appellant: Shri B.N. Rao
For Respondent: Shri R Manjunatha Swamy

O R D E R Per G Manjunatha, AM : This appeal by assessee u/s 253 of Income-tax Act, 1961 is directed against the order of CIT(A)-47, Mumbai dated 30-12-2016 for AY 2006-07. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal:-

“On the facts and in the circumstances of the case: 1. The Assessing officer erred in invoking provisions of section 153 C of the I T Act, 1961 which is ab initio void and bad in law.

2 ITA 1407/Mum/2017

2. The learned Commissioner of Income tax (Appeals) erred in upholding the addition made* fry the Assessing Officer to the extent of 1% commission on the alleged^bogus bills provided by the appellant.”

2.

At the outset of hearing, the Ld.AR for the assessee submits that grounds of appeal raised by assessee are covered against the assessee by the order of Tribunal in assessee’s own case for AYs 2007-08 to 2012-13 in to 1864/Mum/2016 dated 11-04-2018. The Ld.AR for the assessee also furnished copy of order of Tribunal. On the other hand, the Ld.DR for the revenue submits that by following the order of Tribunal for AYs 2007-08 to 2012-13, the appeal for the year under consideration may also be dismissed.

3.

We have considered the submission of both the parties and it is seen that almost on similar grounds of appeal, the appeals of assessee for AYs 2007- 08 to 2012-13 were dismissed by co-ordinate bench of Tribunal by holding as under:-

“8. Up on careful consideration we find that facts of the case and the materials found by the Department and the admission of the assessee and its connected persons clearly indicate that assessee has been operating the business of providing bogus accommodation entries. The books of account financial statement has been found to be falsely maintained. Incriminating materials in this regard were duly found in search. Consequent to which action u/s 153C has been taken in this case. Despite raising a ground challenging the validity of action u/s 153C, the assessee has not pressed the same. In this view of the matter when the assessee is clearly engaged into bogus accommodation entry and there is no dispute to the same; asseessee's reliance upon the decision of Hon’ble apex court in the above case of S Kader Khan (Supra) cannot oxygenate case of the assessee. In the said decision of the Hon’ble apex court there was retraction within four days and there was no corroborating material found. This is not at all the case in the present case. As regards the claim of reduction in the rate of addition we find that revenue is not in appeal against the reduction granted by the learned CIT-A. In our considered opinion Ld CIT-A has been fairly liberal in granting relief to the assessee. As held by the Hon’ble apex court in the case of leave, Kale Khan H. Mohammed vs CIT 50 ITR 1, when assessee claims that a sum received is not taxable

3 ITA 1407/Mum/2017 onus is upon him to prove that the same is not exigible to tax. Here we find that assessee has indulged in bogus accommodation entries and has received huge turnover. The learned CIT-A is taxing only 0.85% as profit out of the same. In our considered opinion the assessee has not discharged its onus as per ratio of above Hon’ble Apex Court decision. We find that the order of learned CIT-A is reasonable and does not need any interference on our part.”

4.

Considering the decision of Tribunal in assessee’s own case for AYS 2007-08 to 2012-13, on similar set of facts on similar ground of appeal and the fact that the Ld.AR of the assessee himself has relied upon the order of the Tribunal, therefore, we do not find any merit in the ground of appeal raised by assessee.

5.

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed.

Order pronounced in the open court on 11-07-2019.

More judgments on Section 153C

All 9,619 judgments and leading authorities on Section 153C →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →