MIHIR OVERSEAS,MUMBAI vs. ITO 24(1)(4), MUMBAI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 6809/MUM/2016Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 November 2017AY 2008-093 pages

In favour of the Revenue: the assessee's appeal was dismissed. From the AI summary of this appeal.

AI SummaryDismissed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The CIT(A) partially confirmed the addition, sustaining 30% of the purchase value, considering the assessee's GP rate and the possibility of profit from grey market purchases. The Tribunal found no material to interfere with the CIT(A)'s order.

What were the facts?

The assessee challenged an addition related to alleged bogus purchases made from parties identified as hawala dealers by the Sales tax department. The AO disallowed the entire purchase amount as the suppliers could not be served and the assessee could not produce them.

What were the issues?

Whether the entire amount of purchases made from alleged hawala dealers can be disallowed, or if a partial disallowance is justified based on reconciliation with sales and profit margins.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 133(6)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Cases cited in this judgment(2)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.

Order u/s.254(1)of the Income-tax Act,1961(Act) लेखा सद�य लेखा सद�य, बी बी. . . . आर आर. . . . बा�करन बा�करन केकेकेके अनुसार अनुसार/ Per B.R. Baskaran, AM- लेखा लेखा सद�य सद�य बी बी आर आर बा�करन बा�करन अनुसार अनुसार The assessee has filed this appeal challenging the order dated 11.07.2016 passed by Ld CIT(A)-41, Mumbai in partially confirming the addition relating to alleged bogus purchases made in AY 2008-09. None appeared on behalf of the assessee, even though the notice of hearing was sent by registered post. Hence we proceed to dispose of the appeal, ex- parte, without the presence of the assessee.

2.

We heard Ld D.R and perused the record. The assessee is a manufacturer cum trader of paper stickers and other packing materials. Consequent to the information received from the Sales tax department, it came to the notice of the revenue that the assessee has made purchases to the tune of Rs.51,20,538/- during the year under consideration from the parties, who were listed out by the Sales tax department as hawala dealers, i.e., they provided only accommodation bills without actually supplying the material. The AO issued notices u/s 133(6) of the Act to the suppliers, but they were returned back un-served. The assessee also could not produce

1.

6809/M/16 M/s. Mihir Overseas parties before the AO. Hence the AO treated the above said amount of Rs.51,20,538/- as bogus purchases and disallowed the same.

3.

Before Ld CIT(A), the assessee furnished quantity details and other evidences available with him. The Ld CIT(A) noticed that the assessee could not prove the transport of materials. Accordingly, the Ld CIT(A) took the view that the addition of entire amount of purchases is not justified, since the assessee has reconciled purchases with sales. Accordingly, by taking cue from the decision rendered by Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in the cases of Vijay Proteins Ltd (2015)(58 taxmann.com 44) and CIT Vs. Simit P Sheth (2013)(356 ITR 451), the Ld CIT(A) that a portion of purchases may be sustained. Accordingly the Ld CIT(A) sustained addition to the extent of 30% of value of purchases, which worked out to Rs.15,36,161/-. Still aggrieved, the assessee has filed this appeal.

4.

The Ld D.R strongly contended that the order of Ld CIT(A) does not call for any interference, since the first appellate authority has taken reasonable view of the matter.

5.

We notice that the Ld CIT(A) has noticed that the assessee itself was declaring G.P rate of 17.23% and there is possibility of making further profit in purchasing the goods from grey market. Accordingly he has estimated the profit from these alleged purchases at 30%. Before us, no material was placed by the assessee in order to compel us to interfere with the order passed by Ld CIT(A). Hence we have no other option, but to confirm the order passed by him.

6.

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed. फलतः िनधा�रती �ारा दािखल क� गई अपील नामंजूर क� जाती है. Order pronounced in the open court on 28th November, 2017. आदेश क� घोषणा खुले �यायालय म� �दनांक 28 नवंबर, 2017 को क� गई । Sd/- Sd/- (राम लाल नेगी राम लाल नेगी / Ram Lal Negi) (बी बा�करन / B.R. Baskaran) राम लाल नेगी राम लाल नेगी बी बी. . . . आर बी आर आर. . . . बा�करन आर बा�करन बा�करन �याियक सद�य / JUDICIAL MEMBER लेखा सद�य / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER लेखा सद�य लेखा लेखा सद�य सद�य 2

More judgments on Section 133(6)

All 7,227 judgments and leading authorities on Section 133(6) →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →