Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “C” BENCH, MUMBAI
Before: SHRI JOGINDER SINGH, JM & SHRI MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL, AM
ITA.No.131/Mum/2016 Om Developers Assessment Year-2010-11 आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण “सी” �ायपीठ मुंबई म�। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “C” BENCH, MUMBAI जोिग�र िसंह ,�ाियक सद� एवं �ी मनोज कुमार अ�वाल, लेखा सद� के सम� । BEFORE SHRI JOGINDER SINGH, JM AND SHRI MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL, AM आयकर अपील सं./ (िनधा�रण वष� / Assessment Year: 2010-11) Om Developers Deputy Commissioner Of बनाम/ Office No.14, Mahavir Centre Income Tax 15(3) Sector No.17, Vashi Mumbai Vs. Navi Mumbai-400 705 �थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./PAN/GIR No. AAAFO-9862-A (अपीलाथ� /Appellant) (��थ� / Respondent) : Assessee by : Devendra Jain,Ld. AR Revenue by : Rajat Mittal, Ld. DR सुनवाई की तारीख / : 06/12/2017 Date of Hearing घोषणा की तारीख / : 10/01/2018 Date of Pronouncement आदेश / O R D E R Per Manoj Kumar Aggarwal (Accountant Member)
The captioned appeal by assessee for Assessment Year [AY] 2010-11 assails the order of the Ld. Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals)-26 CIT(A)], Mumbai, Appeal No. CIT(A)-26/IT/771/13-14 dated 16/10/2015 qua confirmation of certain additions on account of alleged bogus purchases. The assessment for impugned AY was framed by Ld. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax-15(3), Mumbai [AO] u/s 143(3) of ITA.No.131/Mum/2016 Om Developers Assessment Year-2010-11 the Income Tax Act,1961 on 20/03/2013. The sole ground raised in the appeal reads as under:- The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in restricting the disallowance of alleged bogus purchase made by the A.O only to the extent of Rs.27,89,100/- ( i.e Gross Profit @ 23.42% of the alleged bogus purchases). The addition retained to the tune of RS.27,89,100/- may please be deleted..
2.1 Facts leading to the same are that the assessee being resident firm engaged in the business of civil construction as builder & developer was assessed u/s 143(3) at Rs.1,48,22,370/- after certain additions / disallowances as against returned income of Rs.26,10,200/- e-filed by the assessee on 28/09/2010. 2.2 Pursuant to receipt of certain information from Sales Tax Authorities regarding dealers indulging in providing accommodation bills, it was noted that the assessee stood beneficiary of such bogus purchase bills from two such parties aggregating to Rs.1,19,09,038/-. Notices issued u/s 133(6) to these parties to confirm the transactions returned back undelivered by the postal authorities with the remarks not known / refused. The assessee, in support, produced purchase bills, delivery challans etc. However, not convinced, Ld. AO, placing reliance on several judicial pronouncements, treated the said purchases as bogus purchases and added the same to the income of the assessee.
Aggrieved, the assessee contested the same with partial success before Ld.CIT(A) vide impugned order dated 16/10/2015 where Ld. CIT(A) after considering the factual matrix restricted the disallowance to 23.42% of alleged bogus purchases, being Gross Profit reflected by the assessee. Aggrieved, the assessee is in further appeal before us.