Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, MUMBAI BENCH “SMC”, MUMBAI
Before: SHRI C.N. PRASAD, HONBLE
O R D E R PER C.N. PRASAD (JM) 1. These two appeals are filed by the assessee against different orders of the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)–52, Mumbai [hereinafter in short “Ld.CIT(A)”] dated 28.03.2018 for the Assessment Years 2009-10 and 2011-12.
In these appeals, the assessee challenged the order of the Ld.CIT(A) in sustaining the disallowance of non-genuine purchases.
2 & 3590/MUM/2018 (A.Ys: 2009-10 & 2010-11) Shri Dinesh M. Bhandari 3. The only argument advanced before us by the Ld. Counsel for the assessee is that during the A.Y. 2011-12 the Ld.CIT(A) estimated the profit element from the purchases treated as non-genuine @12.5%, however, he directed the Assessing Officer to allow set off of Gross Profit already shown by the assessee in the regular books in respect of the purchases from the hawala suppliers. However, it is the contention of the Ld. Counsel for the assessee that similar direction was not given by the Ld.CIT(A) while disposing of the appeal for the A.Y. 2009-10.
Ld. DR vehemently supported the orders of the authorities below.
We have heard the rival submissions, perused the orders of the authorities below. On a careful reading of the Ld.CIT(A) order, we find that the Ld.CIT(A) while disposing of the appeal for the A.Y. 2011-12 though accepted the contention of the Assessing Officer that the purchases were not proved as genuine and only the profit element on such purchases shall be brought to tax @12.5%, he however, directed the Assessing Officer to exclude the Gross Profit already shown by the assessee from the estimated purchases of 12.5%. However, while disposing of the appeal for the A.Y. 2009-10 the Ld.CIT(A) sustained the action of the Assessing Officer in assessing the purchases @12.5%, since in the course of the assessment proceedings the assessee himself came
3 & 3590/MUM/2018 (A.Ys: 2009-10 & 2010-11) Shri Dinesh M. Bhandari forward and agreed for addition @12.5% of the purchases as non- genuine. This fact was also recorded by the Ld. Assessing Officer in his order that the assessee vide in his submissions stated that to buy peace of mind he offered 12.5% of such non-genuine gross purchases for taxation. In view of the admission of the assessee the Ld.CIT(A) sustained the addition made by the Assessing Officer. We also observed that the assessee had not challenged the finding of the Assessing Officer or the Ld.CIT(A). In the circumstances, we do not find any infirmity in the order of the Ld.CIT(A) in sustaining the action of the Assessing Officer in bringing to tax the profit element from such purchases @12.5% as the assessee himself agreed for such addition. When the assessee himself agreed for such addition we do not see any grievance to the assessee. Thus, the argument of the Ld. Counsel for the assessee seeking direction to the Assessing Officer to reduce the gross profit already shown from the purchases even for the A.Y. 2009-10 is rejected.
In the result, appeals of the assessee are dismissed.
Order pronounced in the open court on the 05th April, 2019