ASHOK ELECTRICALS,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER 18(3)(2), MUMBAI
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal found that the assessees had submitted purchase and sales bills to the CIT(A). Considering the nature of the business, the Tribunal modified the addition to 10% of the bogus purchases.
What were the facts?
The Assessing Officer (AO) made additions to the income of the assessees by estimating 12.5% profit on alleged bogus purchases from hawala dealers. The assessees argued that they were not given an opportunity for cross-examination and that supporting documents were not provided.
What were the issues?
Whether the addition made on account of bogus purchases by estimating profit is justified, and if the assessee was denied natural justice.
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 R.C.SHARMA, AM & SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN, JM
Heard together (2 matters)
Read from the judgment's own cause title. This page is filed under one of them.
Date of Hearing 07/02/2018 Date of Pronouncement 12/02/2018 आदेश / O R D E R PER R.C.SHARMA (A.M): These are the appeals filed by two different assessees for the A.Y.2010-11 and 2011-12 in the matter of order passed u/s.143(3) r.w.s.147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961.
Facts in all the four appeals are same, wherein addition has been made by the AO by estimating extra profit at 12.5% of bogus purchases. By the impugned orders the CIT(A) confirmed the action of AO. Assessee is in further appeal before us.
M/s. Ashok Electricals & M/s. Asian Electricals
Rival contentions have been heard and record perused.
Facts in brief are that assessee is a dealer in electrical goods. In the case of Ashok Electricals, during the course of assessment for A.Y.2010-11, AO made addition of Rs.15,175/- being 12.5% of purchases of Rs.1,21,406/- from the so called hawala dealers, however, AO has not rejected books of accounts. It was also argued by learned AR that no opportunity of cross examination was given by the AO in respect of the dealers on whose statement AO has relied. It was also submitted that copies of statement / documents on which AO has relied upon were also not given to the assessee. From the record, we found that on the basis of information from Sales Tax and DGIT(Inv.), AO found that assessee has not purchased goods from the parties as recorded in its books of accounts, therefore, estimated extra profit of 12.5% on such purchases. We found that before the CIT(A) assessee has filed purchase bills in respect of purchases made from so called parties vide letter dated 09/09/2015 and corresponding sales bills to whom sales were made for the goods purchased from the so called hawala dealers vide letter dated 15/12/2015 alongwith itemwise break up of sales and purchases. Keeping in view totality of facts and circumstances of the case, vis-à-vis nature of assessee’s business, we modify the order of lower authorities and restrict the addition to the extent of 10% of bogus purchases in all the above cases.
M/s. Ashok Electricals & M/s. Asian Electricals
In the result, appeals are allowed in part in terms indicated hereinabove.
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 →- Ganesh Trimbak Saraf And Another vs. The State Of Maharashtra And AnotherBombay · 26 Oct 2026
- M/S. Vajram Infra Material Industries vs. The State Of Andhra PradeshAndhra Pradesh · 26 Oct 2026
- Tyre Center vs. The Superintendent Of CGSTAndhra Pradesh · 26 Oct 2026
- M/S Monolith Resorts Private Limited vs. The CommissionerUttarakhand · 26 Oct 2026
- Sutlej Textiles And Industries Limited vs. Union Of INDIARajasthan · 26 Oct 2026