EMPEEF CHEMICALS P.LTD,MUMBAI vs. ITO 12(2)(2), MUMBAI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 5124/MUM/2017Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 February 2018AY 2010-113 pages
AI SummaryPartly Allowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal followed its own precedent in the assessee's own case for a prior assessment year, where similar unexplained purchases were restricted to 10%. Therefore, the addition was directed to be restricted to 10% of the purchases.

What were the facts?

The assessee's purchases from four concerns were deemed bogus by the Assessing Officer as these parties were on the Sales Tax Department's list of hawala dealers. The CIT(A) restricted the addition to 30% of the purchases.

What were the issues?

Whether purchases from parties listed as hawala dealers are to be treated as unexplained, and if so, to what extent can the addition be restricted.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 69C

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Cases cited in this judgment(1)Show list

Detected automatically from the text. Citations are also linked where they appear in the judgment. The count shows how many other judgments on BharatTax rely on the same authority.

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, MUMBAI BENCH “SMC”, MUMBAI

Before: SHRI G.S. PANNU

For Appellant: Shri Ashok L. Gosar
For Respondent: Ms. N. Hemalatha
Hearing: 19/02/2018Pronounced: 23/02/2018

The captioned appeal by the assessee is directed against the order of CIT(A)-20, Mumbai dated 04.04.2017, pertaining to the Assessment Year 2010-11, which in turn has arisen from the order dated 28.12.2015 passed by the Assessing Officer, Mumbai under section 143(3) r.w.s. 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short ‘the Act’).

2.

Although the assessee has raised multiple Grounds of appeal, but the solitary dispute is with regard to the purchases of Rs.19,12,778/-, which had been held by the income-tax authorities to be bogus.

M/s. Empeef Chemicals Pvt. Ltd.

3.

Briefly put, the relevant facts are that the assessee is in the business of manufacture of fertilizers, chemicals, paints, etc., and in the course of assessment proceedings, the Assessing Officer noted that assessee had purchased goods from four concerns whose names appeared in the list of hawala dealers prepared by the Sales Tax Department meaning that such parties were not actually carrying out the business of purchase or sale of goods, but were merely providing accommodation entries/bills. Noticing the failure of the assessee to establish the genuineness of the parties, and noticing the absence of any proof of transportation of goods, the entire purchases of Rs.19,12,778/- was considered as unexplained and added to the returned income in terms of Sec. 69C of the Act. The CIT(A) has, in- principle, affirmed the decision of the Assessing Officer, but restricted the addition to 30% of the amount of purchases, which came to Rs.5,73,834/- following, inter-alia, the ratio of the judgment of Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in the case of Simit P. Sheth, 356 ITR 451 (Gujarat). Not being satisfied with the order of the CIT(A), assessee is in further appeal before the Tribunal.

4.

At the time of hearing, the learned representative for the assessee referred to the decision of the Tribunal in dated 30.06.2017 in assessee’s own case for Assessment Year 2009-10, wherein in a similar situation, the addition with regard to unexplained purchases has been restricted to 10% of such unexplained purchases. Following the said precedent, which has been rendered under identical circumstances, I find no reason to distract from the precedent in assessee’s own case dated 30.06.2017 (supra). Accordingly, the order of CIT(A) is set-aside and the M/s. Empeef Chemicals Pvt. Ltd.

Assessing Officer is directed to restrict the addition to 10% of the stated purchases.

5.

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed, as above.

Order pronounced in the open court on 23rd February, 2018.

More judgments on Section 69C

All 8,217 judgments and leading authorities on Section 69C →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →