URVASHI INDUSTRIES,MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT CIR 4, THANE

Registry has pointed out a delay of 76 days in filing the present appeal. The assessee has filed an application seeking condonation of delay being supported by an Affidavit. After perusing the said application and the affidavit filed in support, we are satisfied that the delay in filing the appeal was for a reasonable cause. Therefore, we

The issue in dispute is confined to the addition of ` 27,846, made on account of alleged bogus purchases.

Brief facts are, assessee, a partnership firm, is a manufacturer and exporter of stainless steel utensils. For the assessment year under dispute, the assessee filed its return of income on 29th September 2008, declaring total income of ` 53,49,355. Pursuant to information gathered during a survey conducted under section 133A of the Act in the business premises of the assessee as well as information obtained from Sales Tax authorities, the Assessing Officer found that purchases worth ` 1,85,640, claimed to have been made from M/s. Dhanera Metal Corporation, during the relevant previous year are not genuine, as the concerned party has been identified as a hawala operator by the Sales Tax authorities. Accordingly, the Assessing Officer re–opened the assessment under section 147 of the Act. In the course of the assessment proceedings, the Assessing Officer called upon the assessee to prove the genuineness of the disputed purchases with supporting evidence. As observed by the Assessing Officer in the assessment order, the assessee was unable to prove the genuineness of the purchases with cogent evidence. Accordingly, the Assessing

The learned Commissioner (Appeals), after considering the submissions of the assessee vis–a–vis the facts and material on record, restricted the addition to ` 27,846, being 15% of the alleged bogus purchases.

We have considered rival submissions and perused materials on record. The learned Counsels appearing for both the parties have agreed that while deciding identical issue of estimation of profit on bogus purchases in assessee’s own case for assessment year 2009–10 the Tribunal has upheld the decision of the learned Commissioner (Appeals) in restricting the disallowance to 15% of the alleged bogus purchases. On a perusal of order dated 22nd August 2017, passed by the Co–ordinate Bench in ITA no.3547/Mum./2016 and another in assessee’s own case for assessment year 2009–10, we find the aforesaid submissions of the parties to be correct. Respectfully following the decision of the Co–ordinate Bench as referred to above, we uphold the order of the first appellate authority on this issue. Grounds raised are dismissed.

In the result, assessee’s appeal is dismissed. Order pronounced in the open Court on 28.03.2018