SHRI JABARSINGH D. RAJPUROHIT,MUMBAI vs. I.T.O. - 19(2)(1), MUMBAI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 135/MUM/2018Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 September 2018AY 2009-103 pages
AI SummaryDismissed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s order, finding that the reopening of assessment was valid and the addition on account of bogus purchases, after considering the Gross Profit declared by the assessee, was justified. The Tribunal found no reason to interfere with the CIT(A)'s reasoned order.

What were the facts?

The assessee challenged the reopening of assessment and an addition made by the Assessing Officer (AO) on account of bogus purchases. The assessee did not appear for the hearing, and the appeal was decided based on the available records and the Revenue's representative's arguments.

What were the issues?

Whether the reopening of assessment was validly done by the AO. Whether the addition made on account of bogus purchases, after considering the Gross Profit, was justified.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 147

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, MUMBAI BENCH “SMC”, MUMBAI

Before: SHRI JOGINDER SINGH & SHRI RAJESH KUMAR

For Respondent: Shri S.K. Bepari, Sr. D.R
Hearing: 05.09.2018Pronounced: 17.09.2018

Per Rajesh Kumar, Accountant Member:

1.

The present appeal has been preferred by the assessee against the order dated 20.12.2017 of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [hereinafter referred to as the CIT(A)] relevant to assessment year 2009-10.

2.

The assessee has raised two grounds of appeal. In the first ground, the assessee has challenged the reopening of assessment under section 147 of the Act whereas in the second ground the assessee has challenged the addition on merit agitating the confirmation of addition to the extent of Rs.10,37,461/- minus GP declared by Ld. CIT(A) as against

3. At the outset, we would like to mention that the assessee did not appear before the Bench today when the case was called up for hearing. However, a letter seeking for adjournment was filed which was declined by the Bench after examining the facts of the case as the issue is squarely covered by the several decisions of the co-ordinate benches of the Tribunal qua the bogus purchases. After perusing the order of Ld. CIT(A) and after hearing the Ld. D.R., we find that the case of the assessee has been validly opened by the AO after recording reason for such reopening which appears to have been rightly upheld by the CIT(A) after passing a very reasoned and detailed order. Moreover, there is nothing before us to controvert the findings of the Ld. CIT(A) on the issue of reopening. We, therefore, are inclined to uphold the order of Ld. CIT(A) on this issue.

4. So far as the sustenance of addition of Rs.10,37,461/- minus GP already declared by the assessee @ 5.27% is concerned, we observe from the perusal of the assessment order that assessee is undoubtedly a beneficiary of hawala entries to the tune of Rs.82,99,690/- which the assessee could not prove or substantiate during the course of assessment proceedings and consequently the AO added a sum of Rs.10,37,461/- being 12.5% of such purchases which was partly allowed by the FAA by directing the reduction of the amount of GP already declared by the assessee which is 3 Shri Jabarsingh D. Rajpurohit approximately 5.27% meaning thereby that 7.23% was sustained by Ld. CIT(A). In our view, the order of Ld. CIT(A) is very reasoned and does not call for any interference from our side as we do not find any reason to deviate from the findings of the Ld. CIT(A). In view of the fact that the co- ordinate Benches of the Tribunal have been taking a consistent view in the matter of bogus purchases to bring the profit on the bogus purchases to tax which has been done very reasonably by the Ld. CIT(A). Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal of the assessee.

Order pronounced in the open court on 17.09.2018.

More judgments on Section 147

All 49,210 judgments and leading authorities on Section 147 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →