Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “C” BENCH, MUMBAI
Before: HON’BLE SHRI MAHAVIR SINGH, JM & HON’BLE SHRI MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL, AM
आदेश / O R D E R
Per Manoj Kumar Aggarwal (Accountant Member) 1. Aforesaid appeal by assessee for Assessment Year [in short referred to as ‘AY’] 2009-10 contest the order of Ld. Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals)-17, Mumbai, [in short referred to as ‘CIT(A)’], Appeal No. CIT(A)-17/IT-31/15-16 dated 15/06/2017 qua confirmation of certain additions on account of alleged bogus purchases. 2.1 Brief facts are that the assessee being resident corporate entity stated to be engaged in manufacturing of fabrics was subjected to M/s. Pacific Harish Industries Ltd. Assessment Year :2009-10 reassessment proceedings for impugned AY u/s 143(3) read with Section 147 on 20/02/2015 by Ld. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax-10(3)(2), Mumbai [AO]. The reassessment proceedings got triggered pursuant to receipt of certain information from Sales Tax Department, Maharashtra & investigation wing that the assessee stood beneficiary of accommodation bills to the tune of Rs.18.03 Lacs from 4 parties, the details of which have been extracted in para 5.1 of the quantum assessment order. Accordingly, notice u/s 148 dated 04/03/2014 was issued to the assessee. The original return of income filed by the assessee on 30/09/2009 was processed u/s 143(1). 2.2 Although the assessee filed copies of invoices, ledger extracts, bank statements etc. in support of the transactions but failed to produce any of the supplier to confirm the transactions. Disregarding the assessee’s submissions, Ld. AO disallowed the same and added the same to the income of the assessee. The stand of Ld. AO, upon confirmation by first appellate authority is under appeal before us.
The Ld. Authorized Representative for Assessee [AR], on the strength of documents placed in the paper-book pleaded for reasonable estimation against the same which has been opposed by Ld. DR.
Upon careful consideration, we find that the assessee was in possession of primary purchase documents and the books of accounts were subjected to audit. There could be no sale without actual purchase / consumption of material keeping in view the assessee’s nature of business. Further, the payments to the suppliers were through banking channels. At the same time, the assessee could not supply the M/s. Pacific Harish Industries Ltd. Assessment Year :2009-10 whereabouts of the suppliers and also could not produce any of the supplier to confirm the transactions. Keeping in view the totality of all these factors, we restrict the impugned additions to 12.5% of alleged bogus purchase of Rs.18,03,072/- which comes to Rs.2,25,384/-. The balance addition stands deleted 5. The appeal stands partly allowed. Order pronounced in the open court on 03rd April, 2019.