Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “E”
Before: SHRI R. C. SHARMA, AM & SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN, JM
आदेश / O R D E R
Per Sandeep Gosain, Judicial Member:
The present Appealfiled by the revenue is against the order of Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-2, Mumbai dated Rohan Pignents Pvt. Ltd 19.01.17 for AY 2009-10 on the ground mentioned herein below:-
1. 1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in relying on the decision of Supreme Court in the case of Kanchwala Gems Vs. KIT 288 ITR 10(SC) and Hon'ble High Court's decision in the case or Vijay Protein, Sanjay Oil Cake Industries, etc..
2. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, and in law, the Hon'ble CIT(A)erred In not following the order of ITAT, Pune in dated 20.02.2015 In the case of M/s. Kolte Patil Developers Ltd. wherein 100% addition of bogus purchases was confirmed.
3. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in givingrelief to the assessee to the extent of suppressed G.P. out of total bogus purchases even though- (i) The assessee could not produce primary evidences like Octroi Receipts, DeliveryChallan etc. evidence to prove the genuineness of the purchases before the AO and before CIT(A). (ii) The affidavits filed by the entry providers before Sales Tax Authorities cannot be ignored having evidentiary value.
Rohan Pignents Pvt. Ltd 4. The order of the CIT(A) may be vacated and that of the Assessing Officer may berestored. 5. The appellant craves leave to add, amend, alter or delete any ground of appeal.
At the very outset, it is noticed that none has appeared on behalf of assessee and even no application for adjournment was moved. On the other hand Ld. DR is present in the court and is ready with arguments. Therefore we have decided to proceed with the hearing of the case ex-parte with the assistance of the Ld. DR and the material on record.
As per the facts of the present case, the assessee is engaged in fabrication and manufacturing of pigments. The return of income for the year under consideration was filed on 26.09.11 declaring total income at Rs. 4,07,364/-. The return was processed u/s 143(1) of the I.T. Act, 1961. Subsequently, information was received by the AO from DGIT(Inv.), Mumbai related to bogus purchase entries received from the Sales Tax Department, Maharashtra. The AO had information that some of the parties from whom the assessee had made purchases were bogus and they are engaged in the business of providing bills Rohan Pignents Pvt. Ltd without actual delivery of goods worth Rs. 51,97,036/-. The case of the assessee was reopened u/s 147 of the I.T. Act. The income of the assessee was assessed by making addition of Rs. 51,97,036/-.
Aggrieved by the order of AO, assessee preferred appeal before Ld. CIT(A) and Ld. CIT(A) after considering the case of both the parties partly allowed the appeal of the assessee. Now before us, the revenue has preferred the appeal by raising the above grounds.
Ground No. 1 to 4. 4. All the grounds raised by the revenue are inter connected and inter related, therefore we thought it fit to dispose of the same thorough this common order.
5. We have heard Ld. DR and we have also perused the material placed on record as well as the orders passed by revenue authorities. We find that Ld.CIT(A) after considering the facts of the present case has rightly restricted the addition @ 10% of the hawala purchases after following the decision of the Coordinate Rohan Pignents Pvt. Ltd Bench of Hon’ble ITAT in the case of Patco Precision Components Pvt. Ltd. Vrs. ACIT in ITA No. 695/PN/16. No new facts or contrary judgments have been brought on record before us in order to controvert or rebut the findings so recorded by Ld CIT (A). Therefore, there are no reasons for us to interfere into or deviate from the findings recorded by the Ld. CIT (A). Hence, we are of the considered view that the findings so recorded by the Ld. CIT (A) are judicious and are well reasoned. Resultantly, this ground raised by the revenue stands dismissed.
6. In the net result, the appeal filed by the revenue stands dismissed. Order pronounced in the open court on 8th Novt., 2017 Sd/- Sd/- (R.C. Sharma) (Sandeep Gosain) लेखासदस्य / Accountant Member न्याययकसदस्य / Judicial Member मुंबई Mumbai;यदनांकDated : 08.11.2017 Sr.PS. Dhananjay आदेशकीप्रनिनिनिअग्रेनर्ि/Copy of the Order forwarded to : 1. अपीलाथी/ The Appellant 2. प्रत्यथी/ The Respondent 3. आयकरआयुक्त(अपील) / The CIT(A) 4. आयकरआयुक्त/ CIT- concerned यवभागीयप्रयतयनयध, आयकरअपीलीयअयधकरण, मुंबई/ DR, ITAT, 5.