Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “SMC”, BENCH MUMBAI
Before: SHRI R.C.SHARMA, AM &
आदेश / O R D E R PER R.C.SHARMA (A.M):
This is an appeal filed by the assessee against the order of CIT(A)- 16, Mumbai dated 20/09/2016 for A.Y.2009-10 in the matter of order passed u/s.143(3) r.w.s. 147 of the ITAct. 2.The following grounds have been taken by the assessee:-
1. The Honourable Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal –16) has erred in upholding and retaining the additions on account of alleged bogus purchases to Rs. 452579 being 12.5% of the amount of alleged bogus purchase of Rs. 3620629.
2. The appellant prays that retained additions of Rs. 452579 (being 12.5% of the alleged bogus purchases) may please be deleted.
3. The Appellant craves the leave to add, delete, change, alter or amend any of the above grounds of appeal on or before the time of hearing.
M/s. Akshaet Engineering & Construction 3. Nobody appeared on behalf of the assessee instead of giving opportunity. The Bench therefore, decided to dispose the appeal after hearing learned DR and considering the material placed on record.
The brief facts of the case are that the assessee company filed its return of income for A.Y.2009-10 on 17/04/2015 declaring total income at Rs.11,64,305/-. Thereafter, on the basis of information received from Sales Tax (VAT) Department, State of Maharashtra the case was re- opened u/s.147 of the I.T. Act and an order u/s.143(3) r.w.s.147 of the Income Tax Act,1961 was passed on 27/03/2015 assessing the total income of the assessee at Rs.48,56,120/- whereby the purchases for an amount of Rs.36,20,629/- were disallowed u/s 68 & 69C of the Act and addition of Rs.71,182/- was made u/s.37(1).
By the impugned order, CIT(A) confirmed the addition of Rs.71,182/- made u/s.37(1). However, in respect of bogus purchases, he restricted the addition to 12.5% after having following observation:- “Not having doubted the consumption/sales, the motive behind obtaining bogus bills thus, appears to be inflation of purchase price so as to suppress true profits Considering the facts of the case as well as the various case laws cited (supra), I estimate the suppressed profit to the extent of 12.5% of the purchases made from the bogus entities, as the suppressed profit element embedded in such purchases. This estimation is in addition to the GP shown by the appellant. Accordingly, this ground of appeal is partly allowed.”
I have gone through the orders of the authorities below and found that assessee is engaged in fabrication, engineering and trading in Aluminium products. The consumption / sales of the alleged goods so purchased from bogus suppliers were not doubted. Considering the GP rate offered