Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “F” BENCH, MUMBAI
Before: SHRI B.R. BASKARAN & SHRI SAKTIJIT DEY
./2016 (Assessment Year : 2008–09) Urvashi Industries 3, Nityanand Consumer Society Nityanand Nagar no.4 ……………. Appellant Andheri (E), Mumbai 400 069 PAN – AAAFU7651H v/s Asstt. Commissioner of Income Tax ……………. Respondent Circle–4, Thane Assessee by : Shri Devendra Jain Revenue by : Shri Ram Tiwari Date of Hearing – 28.03.2018 Date of Order – 28.03.2018
O R D E R PER SAKTIJIT DEY, J.M.
Aforesaid appeal by the assessee arises out of order dated 26th November 2015, passed by the learned Commissioner (Appeals)–3, Mumbai, for the assessment year 2008–09.
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
2 Urvashi Industries are inclined to condone the delay and admit the appeal for hearing on merit.
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
3 Urvashi Industries Officer disallowed the purchases of ` 1,85,640, and added back to the income of the assessee under section 69C of the Act. The assessee challenged the aforesaid addition made by the Assessing Officer by filing an appeal before the first appellate authority.
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.
4 Urvashi Industries
In the result, assessee’s appeal is dismissed. Order pronounced in the open Court on 28.03.2018