Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, MUMBAI BENCH “G”, MUMBAI
Before: SHRI AMARJIT SINGH & SHRI SANDEEP SINGH KARHAIL
O R D E R
PER AMARJIT SINGH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER:
The Revenue has filed the present appeal against the impugned order dated 07.08.2023 of the ld. CIT(A) passed under section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (“the Act”) by the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [“learned CIT(A)”], for the assessment year 2012–13.
In its appeal, the Revenue has raised the following grounds: - “1. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld CIT(A) has erred in deleting the entire addition of Rs. 1,79,77,391/ made on account of bogus purchases from two parties namely, M/s. A2 Jewels and M/S. Nice Diamonds, by ignoring the fact that DGIT) Inv.) had proved beyond doubt that Mr. Bhawarlal Jain & His Group concerns were Surendra Kumar Laduram Gupta A.Y. 2012-13 involved in providing accommodation entry of Sales and purchases without actual delivery of goods and the assessee was one of the beneficiary who accepting accommodation entries for the purchases of goods ?
2. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld CIT(A) has erred in deleting the entire addition of Rs. 1,79,77,391/ made on account of bogus purchases from two parties namely, M/s. A2 Jewels and M/S. Nice Diamonds, without appreciating the facts that during the Search Operation an statement recorded u/s 132(4) of the Act, of Mr. Bhanwarlal Jain, in which he has categorically stated that those two entities to whom the assessee claimed to have made purchases are managed and controlled by him for providing the accommodation entry only with no real business ?
3. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld CIT(A) has erred in deleting the entire addition of Rs. 1,79,77,391/ made on account of bogus purchases from two parties namely, M/s. A2 Jewels and M/S. Nice Diamonds, by ignoring the fact that the action of the Assessing Officer was based on credible Information received from the DGIT(Inv.), Mumbai and that the assessee during the course of assessment proceedings failed to prove the genuineness of the of the purchase transactions?
4. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld CIT(A) has erred in deleting the addition made by the Assessing Officer amounting to Rs.1.79,77,391/-without appreciating the ratio in the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of N.K. Proteins Ltd., wherein the Court has held that when the purchases are from bogus suppliers, the entire purchases are liable to be disallowed?
5. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld CIT(A) has erred in accepting the facts by relying on the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Andaman Timber Industries Vs CCE in CIVIL APPEAL No. 4228 of 2006 dated. 02.09.2015 which are totally distinct and distinguishable from the facts of the instance case, whereas has ignored the case on which the AO has relied upon was squarely applicable in this case?
6. The appellant craves leave to amend or alter any grounds or add a new ground which may be necessary?”
Surendra Kumar Laduram Gupta A.Y. 2012-13 3. At the outset, we find that in column 10 of Form No. 36 filed by the Revenue, the tax effect relating to the grounds of appeal raised by the Revenue is mentioned as Rs.54,02,573/-, which is below the monetary limit of Rs.60 lakh, applicable to appeals before the Tribunal, as per CBDT Circular no.9 of 2024, dated 17/09/2024. Therefore, in view of the aforesaid, Revenue’s appeal deserves to be dismissed. However, the Revenue is granted the liberty to seek recall of this order if, at a later point in time, it is found that the appeal falls under any of the exceptions provided in the Circular referred to above.
In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed.
Order pronounced in the open court on 09.12.2024.