PRAVIN B. KANUNGO,MUMBAI vs. ITO 19(2)(5), MUMBAI
In favour of the Revenue: the assessee's appeal was dismissed. From the AI summary of this appeal.
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal confirmed the CIT(A)'s decision to restrict the addition of estimated profit to 5% of the alleged bogus purchases. The CIT(A) had reduced the addition from 12.5% estimated by the AO, considering the assessee's business and declared GP.
What were the facts?
The assessment was reopened based on information that the assessee had taken bogus purchases amounting to Rs. 4,94,81,389/- from seven parties. The assessee failed to provide sufficient supporting documents for these purchases.
What were the issues?
The primary issue was the genuineness of purchases and the estimation of profit on alleged bogus purchases. The Tribunal also considered the AO's rejection of books of account.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Cases cited in this judgment(2)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
- CIT v. Bholanath Poly Fab. Pvt. Ltd.712 citing355 ITR 290 · 2013 · HC
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “C”, BENCH MUMBAI
Before: SHRI R.C.SHARMA, AM & SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN, JM Shri Pravin B. Kanungo
आदेश / O R D E R PER R.C.SHARMA (A.M):
This is an appeal filed by the assessee against the order of CIT(A)- 29, Mumbai dated 19/01/2017 for A.Y.2011-12 in the matter of order passed u/s.143(3) r.w.s. 147 of the IT Act.
Nobody appeared on behalf of the assessee inspite of giving opportunity, nor any adjournment petition was filed, therefore, Bench decided to dispose off the appeal after considering the material placed on record and contentions of learned DR. Shri Pravin B Kanungo 3. We have gone through the orders of the authorities below and found that assessment was reopened on the basis of information received from the DGIT(Inv.), Mumbai who in turn had received information from the sales-tax department about some bogus hawala entry providers as per which the assessee was involved in taking entries of non genuine purchases from the seven parties amounting to Rs.4,94,81,389/-.
The AO observed in the assessment order that the assessee has shown purchases to the tune of Rs.4,94,81,389/- from seven parties. In order to verify the genuineness of these purchases, the AO required the assessee to furnish various details. According to him, barring the ledger account and cheque payment details, no other documents like delivery challans, lorry receipts, transportation details etc were produced by the assessee during the assessment proceedings. He placed reliance on the admission made by the alleged parties before the sales tax department that they have not made any sale or purchase transaction. However, as the assessee had declared corresponding sales, the AO held that the assessee was actually in possession of the goods. He presumed that the assessee would be purchasing goods from other suppliers without bills and must have benefited from the margins resulting from the grey market purchases. Therefore, after rejecting the books of account u/s.145(3), he estimated the additional GP @12.5% of the alleged bogus purchases. While doing so, he placed his reliance on the judgement of CIT vs. Simit P. Sheth 356 ITR 451 and M/s. Bholenath Poly Fab P.Ltd. 355 ITR 290.
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 →- Mascot Constructions Co. And Another vs. The Commissioner Of Goods And Services Tax (GST) And AnotherBombay · 22 Oct 2026
- 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