GHISULAL HAMERMAL AND COMPANY,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, 19(2)(3), MUMBAI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 4295/MUM/2017Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai01 October 2018AY 2011-122 pages

In favour of the Revenue: the assessee's appeal was dismissed. From the AI summary of this appeal.

AI SummaryDismissed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s order, following a co-ordinate bench's decision on an identical issue for a previous assessment year. The partial relief granted by the CIT(A) was confirmed.

What were the facts?

The assessee's appeal concerns alleged bogus purchases identified by the Sales Tax Department. The Assessing Officer disallowed a portion of these purchases, and the CIT(A) granted partial relief by reducing the declared profit.

What were the issues?

Whether the CIT(A)'s partial confirmation of the addition relating to bogus purchases, by reducing the declared profit, is justified.

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, MUMBAI BENCHES “G”, MUMBAI

Before: Shri B R Baskaran & Shri Ravish Sood

For Appellant: Shri Piyush Chhajed
For Respondent: Shri Nishant Samaiya
Hearing: 01.10.2018Pronounced: 01.10.2018

O R D E R The appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order, dated 21.03.2017, passed by Ld CIT(A)-29, Mumbai, and it relates to the assessment year 2011-12.

2.

The assessee is aggrieved by the decision of the learned CIT(A) in partially confirming the addition relating to alleged bogus purchases made by the Assessing Officer.

3.

The learned AR submitted that the Assessing Officer has disallowed 12.5% of the value of alleged bogus purchases. On the basis of information received from Sales Tax Department that certain parties are indulging in providing only accommodation bills without actually supplying materials, the AO held that the purchases made from parties identified by the Sales tax department as hawala dealers are bogus in nature. The learned CIT(A) partly allowed the appeal of the assessee by directing the Assessing Officer to Ghisulal Hamermal And Company.

reduce the profit already declared by the assessee on those purchases. The learned AR submitted that an identical issue was considered by the co- ordinate Bench in assessee’s own case for A.Y. 2010-11 and the Tribunal, vide its order dated 26.12.2017 passed in has upheld identical view taken by the learned CIT(A) in AY 2010-11.

4.

We heard the learned DR and perused the record. The Ld A.R has stated that the Ld CIT(A) has passed identical order granting partial relief to the assessee in AY 2010-11. It was further stated the co-ordinate Bench has upheld the view taken by the learned CIT(A) in assessee’s case for A.Y. 2010- 11. The assessee furnished a copy of order passed by the co-ordinate bench in AY 2010-11 and we notice that the Tribunal has upheld the identical view taken by the Ld CIT(A) in that year. Following the same, we uphold the order passed by the learned CIT(A) in this year also.

5.

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed.

Order pronounced in the open court on this day of 1st October 2018

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →