SHRI BHAVIN V VORA,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 2(1), MUMBAI
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal found that the AO's estimation of profit at 12.5% on disputed purchases was not commensurate with the facts. Therefore, the Tribunal directed the AO to estimate the profit at 5%.
What were the facts?
The assessee declared income for AY 2010-11. The AO reopened the assessment based on information about bogus purchase bills amounting to Rs.91,20,342/- from five entry providers.
What were the issues?
Whether the AO was justified in treating the entire amount of disputed purchases as income and whether the profit estimation was appropriate.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Cases cited in this judgment(1)Show listHide 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.
- CIT v. Simit P. Sheth1,465 citing356 ITR 451 · 2013 · HC
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, MUMBAI BENCH “SMC” MUMBAI
Before: SHRI MAHAVIR SINGH & SHRI N.K. PRADHAN
ORDER
PER N.K. PRADHAN, AM
This is an appeal filed by the assessee. The relevant assessment year is 2010-11. The appeal is directed against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-1, Thane [in short ‘CIT(A)’] and arises out of the assessment completed u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 147 of the Income Tax Act 1961, (the ‘Act’).
Briefly stated, the facts are that the assessee, trading in iron and steel filed its return of income for the assessment year (AY) 2010-11 on 15.10.2010 declaring total income of Rs.4,54,841/-. The return was processed u/s 143(1) of the Act. Subsequently, the AO received Shri Bhavin V. Vora Sales Tax Department, Government of Maharashtra that the assessee had obtained bogus purchase bills amounting to Rs.91,20,342/- from five entry providers. On the basis of the said information, the AO reopened the assessment by issuing notice u/s 148 of the Act. During the course of reassessment proceedings, in order to verify the genuineness of purchases, the AO issued notice u/s 133(6) to the said five parties in the address given by the assessee. However, the notices were returned back by the postal authorities with the remark “un-served”. In response to a query raised by the AO to explain as to why the above bogus purchases should not be treated as unaccounted income, the assessee filed a reply stating that the purchases made from the five parties are genuine and claimed that the payments to the said parties were made through cheques. Further, the assessee submitted copies of invoice bills to substantiate these purchases. However, the AO was not convinced with the said reply of the assessee for the reason that those parties have admitted before the Sale Tax Department, Government of Maharashtra that they had not made any sales or purchase transaction. The AO relying on the decision in CIT v. Simit P. Sheth 356 ITR 451 (Guj), estimated the profit @ 12.5% on disputed purchases of Rs.91,20,342/- and thereby brought to tax Rs.11,40,043/-. In appeal, the Ld. CIT(A) agreed with the reasons given by the AO and confirmed the disallowance of Rs.11,40,043/-.
More judgments on Section 147
- ACIT Central Bilaspur, Bilaspur vs Arun Kumar Agrawal, SaktiITSSA 26/RPR/2025[2018-19]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2018-19
- Vinod Agrawal, Kawardha vs Assisstant Commissioner of Income Tax…ITA 666/RPR/2026[2019-20]Status: Heard21 Oct 2026AY 2019-20
- Sar Business Tradelink Private Limited… vs Income Tax Officer, Ward - 1(2), RaipurITA 599/RPR/2026[2014-15]Status: Heard21 Oct 2026AY 2014-15
- Tarunaben Maganlal Bhut, Navagam vs ITO Ward 2(2)(1), RajkotITA 673/RJT/2026[2024-25]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2024-25
- Neo Incorporation, Rajkot vs DCIT Circle- 1(2), RajkotITA 471/RJT/2026[2012-2013]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2012-2013
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- Ankil Jagdishchandra Kholwadwala vs. Union Of INDIA And AnrBombay · 22 Oct 2026
- Fasil Hussain Shah vs. Ut Of J And K Th Commissioner Secretary TO Government Finance Department And OthersJammu and Kashmir and Ladakh · 21 Oct 2026
- M/S. Devkinandan Traders vs. State Of U.P. And AnotherAllahabad · 21 Oct 2026
- M/S Dixit Medical Agencies vs. State Of U.P. And AnotherAllahabad · 21 Oct 2026
- Sukant Kumar vs. Union Of INDIA And 6 OthersAllahabad · 21 Oct 2026