BENITE STEELS LTD,MUMBAI vs. ITO 1(1)(1), MUMBAI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 3403/MUM/2016Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai07 February 2018AY 2009-104 pages
AI SummaryDismissed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal followed its previous order in a similar appeal by the revenue, finding the estimated addition by the CIT(A) to be reasonable. Therefore, the assessee's appeal was dismissed.

What were the facts?

The assessee's assessment was reopened based on information about bogus purchase bills from the Sales Tax Department. The Assessing Officer disallowed purchases totaling Rs. 10,70,45,159/-. The CIT(A) restricted the disallowance to 12.5%.

What were the issues?

The primary issue was the genuineness of purchases made by the assessee and the validity of disallowing such purchases based on information regarding bogus bills from suppliers.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 143(3),Section 147,Section 148,Section 133(6),Section 131

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “K” BENCH, MUMBAI

Before: SHRI SAKTIJIT DEY, JM & SHRI MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL, AM

आदेश / O R D E R

Per Manoj Kumar Aggarwal (Accountant Member) 1. The captioned appeal by assessee for Assessment Year [AY] 2009-10 assails the order of the Ld. Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals)-2 [CIT(A)], Mumbai, Appeal No.CIT(A)-2/IT/46/2014-15 dated 26/02/2016. The assessment for impugned AY was framed by Ld. Income Tax Officer-1(1)(1) [AO] u/s 143(3) read with Section 147 of the ITA.No.3403/Mum/2016 Benite Steels Limited Assessment Year-2009-10 Income Tax Act, 1961 on 24/03/2014. The solitary issue involved in the appeal is addition against certain alleged bogus purchases. 2.1 Facts leading to the same are that the assessee being resident corporate assessee engaged in Trading of Iron & Steel was subjected to an assessment u/s 143(3) read with Section 147 for impugned AY at Rs.10,71,88,997/- after addition of certain bogus purchases for Rs.10,70,45,159/-. The original return was filed on 25/09/2009 at Rs.1,43,838/- which was processed u/s 143(1). The assessee reflected turnover of Rs.31.77 Crores. 2.2 The reassessment proceedings were initiated upon receipt of certain information from Sales Tax Department, Maharashtra regarding dealers indulging in bogus purchase bills and it was noted that the assessee stood beneficiary of such bogus purchase bills to the tune of Rs.10,70,45,159/- from four such parties. Consequently, statutory notice u/s 148 dated 14/03/2013 was issued to the assessee which was followed by notices u/s 143(2) and 142(1). 2.3 During assessment proceedings, the assessee, inter-alia, pleaded that the purchases were genuine and produced party wise sale/purchase details, bank statement evidencing payments to suppliers. However, notices u/s 133(6) as well as summons u/s 131 issued to alleged bogus suppliers remained un-served with remarks ‘not known / not claimed’. Finally, not convinced, Ld. AO disallowed the purchases and added the same to the income of the assessee.

3.

Aggrieved, the assessee contested the same with partial success before Ld.CIT(A) vide impugned order dated 26/02/2016 where Ld. ITA.No.3403/Mum/2016 Benite Steels Limited Assessment Year-2009-10 CIT(A) restricted the disallowance to 12.5%. Aggrieved, the assessee in is further appeal before us.

4.

The Ld. Departmental Representative [DR], at the outset, drew our attention to the fact that the revenue also contested the stand of Ld. CIT(A) before this Tribunal vide dated 04/08/2017 where the Tribunal found the addition as estimated by Ld. CIT(A) to be reasonable one and dismissed the revenue’s appeal and therefore, the same view may be taken here. The Ld. Authorized Representative [AR] for assessee, while conceding the same, pleaded for further relief.

5.

We have perused the cited order of the Tribunal. We concur with the stand of the revenue that a view has already been taken by the Tribunal on factual matrix against revenue’s appeal. It is also noted that the said order is co-authored by one of us and therefore, respectfully following the same, holding that the estimated addition was reasonable one, we dismiss assessee’s appeal.

6.

Resultantly, the assessee’s appeal stands dismissed. Order pronounced in the open court on 07th February, 2018.

More judgments on Section 147

All 49,210 judgments and leading authorities on Section 147 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →