KRASNY DEFENCE TECHNOLOGIES P. LTD,NAVI MUMBAI vs. DCIT 15(2)(2), MUMBAI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 3913/MUM/2017Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai01 August 2018AY 2011-122 pages
AI SummaryPartly Allowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal, following its own precedent in an identical case for AY 2009-10, decided to sustain the addition to the extent of 8% of the value of alleged bogus purchases.

What were the facts?

The assessee, engaged in ship repairing, had its assessment reopened based on information about accommodation bills from hawala parties for purchases. The Assessing Officer disallowed the entire purchase amount, and the CIT(A) sustained 43.15% of the addition.

What were the issues?

The primary issue was the extent to which additions for bogus purchases should be sustained when the assessee had provided accommodation bills.

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “K” Bench, Mumbai

For Appellant: Shri Prakash K. Jotwani
For Respondent: Shri Manoj Kumar
Hearing: 01.8.2018Pronounced: 01.8.2018

O R D E R Per B.R. Baskaran (AM) :-

The assessee has filed this appeal challenging the order dated 10.1.2017 passed by the learned CIT(A)-24, Mumbai and it relates to A.Y. 2011-12. The assessee is aggrieved by the decision of the learned CIT(A) in sustaining the addition to the extent of 43.15% of the value of bogus purchases.

2.

Learned Counsel appearing for the assessee submitted that the assessee is engaged in the business of ship repairing and marine services. He submitted that the assessment of the year under consideration was reopened on the basis of information received from the sales tax department that the assessee has taken accommodation bills from hawala parties, without actually purchasing goods. Value of purchases so made was mentioned as ` 29.20 lakhs by the Assessing Officer. In the assessment order, the Assessing Officer disallowed the above said amount of ` 29.20 lakhs. In the appellate proceedings, the learned CIT(A) sustained the addition to the extent of 43.15%.

2 M/s. Krasny Defence Technologies Pvt. Ltd. 3. Learned AR submitted that an identical addition was made in the assessee’s own case in A.Y. 2009-10 and the Tribunal, vide its order dated 7.5.2018 in has sustained the addition to the extent of 8% of the value of alleged bogus purchases. Accordingly, he submitted that the addition in the instant year may also be sustained to the extent of 8% of the value of bogus purchases.

4.

We heard learned DR and perused the record. We noticed that the Tribunal, on identical set of facts, has sustained the addition to the extent of 8% of the value of bogus purchases in assessee’s own case in A.Y. 2009-10 (referred supra). Following the same, we modify the order passed by the learned CIT(A) on this issue and direct the Assessing Officer to restrict the addition to the extent of 8% of the value of bogus purchases.

5.

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed.

Order has been pronounced in the Court on 01.8.2018.

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →