M/S. PACIFIC HARISH INDUSTRIES LTD.,MUMBAI vs. ASST. COMM. OF INCOME TAX - 10(3)(2), MUMBAI
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal acknowledged that the assessee had primary purchase documents and payments were made through banking channels. However, due to the inability to produce suppliers, the additions were restricted to 12.5% of the alleged bogus purchases.
What were the facts?
The assessee was subjected to reassessment proceedings based on information about alleged bogus purchases from four parties. While the assessee provided invoices and bank statements, they failed to produce suppliers for confirmation.
What were the issues?
Whether the entire disallowance on account of alleged bogus purchases is justified when primary documents and banking transactions exist, but suppliers cannot be produced for confirmation.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
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.
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 →- Kamlasana Impex Private Limited vs. Director General Of GST Intelligence (Hq) Delhi) & Anr.Delhi · 27 Oct 2026
- Ritu Gautam Proprietor Of Ms Heritage International vs. Additional Commissioner Central Goods And Services Tax Appeals Ii Delhi & Anr.Delhi · 27 Oct 2026
- Sutha vs. The State Tax Officer(Inspection-3)Madras · 27 Oct 2026
- M/S.Sri Satya Sai Constructions vs. The State Of Andhra PradeshAndhra Pradesh · 27 Oct 2026
- Anisha Busa vs. Sibar Institute Of Dental SciencesAndhra Pradesh · 27 Oct 2026