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

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.

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.

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.

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