IRFAN MUKARAB KHILJI,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 26(1)(5), MUMBAI
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal acknowledged that the assessee could not conclusively substantiate the delivery of purchased material or produce the parties for confirmation. However, considering the profit element and past precedents in similar cases, the additions were restricted to 12.5% of the alleged bogus purchases.
What were the facts?
The assessee's assessment was reopened based on information about bogus purchase bills. The Assessing Officer added a significant portion of these alleged bogus purchases to the assessee's income. The CIT(A) confirmed these additions.
What were the issues?
The primary issue was the validity and quantum of additions made on account of alleged bogus purchases where the assessee failed to provide conclusive evidence and produce the suppliers.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “SMC” BENCH, MUMBAI
Before: SHRI SAKTIJIT DEY, JM & SHRI MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL, AM
Per Manoj Kumar Aggarwal (Accountant Member)
The captioned appeal by assessee for Assessment Year [AY] 2009-10 contest the order of Ld. Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals)-38 [CIT(A)], Mumbai, Appeal No.CIT(A)- 38/ITO.26(1)(5)/IT.60/2015-16 dated 30/11/2016 qua confirmation of certain additions on account of alleged bogus purchases. The ITA.No.1816/Mum/2018 Irfan Mukarab Khilji Assessment Year- 2009-10 assessment for impugned AY was framed by Ld. Income Tax Officer- 26(1)(5), Mumbai [AO] u/s 143(3) read with section 147 of the Income Tax Act,1961 on 27/03/2015 wherein the income of the assessee has been determined at Rs.14,20,235/- after certain additions as against returned income of Rs.4.75 Lacs filed by the assessee on 24/09/2009 which was processed u/s 143(1). The sole issue under appeal is quantum addition against certain alleged bogus purchases. During impugned AY, the assessee was engaged as manufacture and trader under proprietorship concern namely M.K.Forge. The assessee declared gross profit @13.10% and net profit @3.22% in the impugned AY. 2.1 The reassessment proceedings were initiated upon receipt of certain information from Sales Tax Department, Maharasthra regarding dealers indulging in issuing bogus purchase bills wherein it was found that the assessee stood beneficiary for bogus purchase bills to the tune of Rs.37,78,365/- from eighteen such parties, the details of which have been extracted at para-2 of the quantum assessment order. Consequently statutory notice u/s 148 dated 22/03/2014 was issued to the assessee which was followed by notices u/s 143(2) & 142(1). 2.2 The assessee defended the purchases made by him and submitted documentary evidences to substantiate the purchases. However, notices issued u/s 133(6) to all these parties elicited no satisfactory response and the assessee was asked to produce the stated parties for confirmation of the transactions, which assessee failed to do so. Finally not convinced, Ld. AO estimated the quantum addition against these purchases @25% which resulted into an addition of Rs.9,44,591/- in the hands of the assessee. Aggrieved, the assessee contested the same
More judgments on Section 147
- ACIT Central Bilaspur, Bilaspur vs Arun Kumar Agrawal, SaktiITSSA 26/RPR/2025[2018-19]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2018-19
- Vinod Agrawal, Kawardha vs Assisstant Commissioner of Income Tax…ITA 666/RPR/2026[2019-20]Status: Heard21 Oct 2026AY 2019-20
- Sar Business Tradelink Private Limited… vs Income Tax Officer, Ward - 1(2), RaipurITA 599/RPR/2026[2014-15]Status: Heard21 Oct 2026AY 2014-15
- Tarunaben Maganlal Bhut, Navagam vs ITO Ward 2(2)(1), RajkotITA 673/RJT/2026[2024-25]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2024-25
- Neo Incorporation, Rajkot vs DCIT Circle- 1(2), RajkotITA 471/RJT/2026[2012-2013]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2012-2013
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- Biswanath Rana vs. The Commissioner, CT And GST, Odisha, CuttackOrissa · 28 Oct 2026
- Sushama Mishra vs. The Commissioner Of CT And GST, Odisha, KatakOrissa · 28 Oct 2026
- Saudamini Samantray vs. Assistant Commissioner Of State Tax, CT And GST, Bhubaneswar IiOrissa · 28 Oct 2026
- M/S. Keshav Rice Mill, Ganjam vs. Chief Commissioner, CT And GST, Odisha, KatakaOrissa · 28 Oct 2026
- M/S. Nanda Contruction PVT. LTD., Angul vs. Additional Commissioner, GST And Central Excise Commissionerate, SundergarhOrissa · 28 Oct 2026