DCIT CIR 3, THANE vs. T A GEORGE KUTTY, THANE

PDF · subscribers
ITA 16/MUM/2017Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 September 2018AY 2011-123 pages

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

AI SummaryDismissed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal followed its previous order for AY 2010-11, which sustained a similar disallowance. The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s order in this regard.

What were the facts?

The Revenue appealed against the CIT(A)'s order for AY 2011-12, challenging the estimation of net profit on disallowed purchases. The Assessing Officer had disallowed purchases of ₹.12,75,236/-.

What were the issues?

Whether the CIT(A) was justified in estimating the net profit on disallowed purchases. Whether the Tribunal's decision for AY 2010-11 on a similar issue should be followed.

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

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

Before: SHRI C.N. PRASAD, HONBLE & SHRI RAJESH KUMAR, HONBLE

For Respondent: Shri V. Justin
Hearing: 25.06.2018Pronounced: 12.09.2018

Date of Hearing : 25.06.2018 Date of Pronouncement : 12.09.2018 O R D E R PER C.N. PRASAD (JM)

1.

This appeal is filed by the Revenue against the order of the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-2, Thane dated 26.10.2016 for the Assessment Year 2011-12.

2.

The only grievance of the Revenue in its appeal is that the Ld.CIT(A) estimated the net profit on the purchases disallowed by the Assessing Officer @14.52% & 13.70% for the Assessment Years 2010-11 &

2 ITA.NO.16/MUM/2017 (A.Y: 2011-12) Shri T.A. George Kutty 2011-12 after disallowing the purchases of ₹.5,29,058/- and ₹.12,75,236/- respectively.

3.

Ld. DR at the outset submitted that for the Assessment Year 2010-11 the Tribunal in ITA.No. 15/MUM/2017 dated 11.10.2017 sustained the order of the Ld.CIT(A) in disallowing ₹.5,29,058/-. Ld. DR submitted that for the Assessment Year 2011-12 the Ld.CIT(A) disallowed ₹.12,75,236/-, the order for the Assessment Year 2010-11 of the Tribunal may be followed.

4.

Inspite of issue of notice none appeared on behalf of the assessee.

5.

We have heard the Ld. DR and perused the order of the Tribunal and find that in the Assessment Year 2010-11 the disallowance of purchases as made by the Ld.CIT(A) was sustained by the Tribunal as it is in order. Respectfully following the said decision, we uphold the order of the Ld.CIT(A) and dismiss the appeal of the Revenue.

6.

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed.

Order pronounced in the open court on the 12th September, 2018.

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →