SHREENATH MOTORS P.LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT 5(3), MUMBAI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 3689/MUM/2015Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai01 November 2017AY 2010-113 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal restored the matter to the Assessing Officer (AO) to provide the AIR information to the assessee. The assessee was directed to reconcile the information and substantiate the purchase transactions.

What were the facts?

The assessee's appeal concerns additions made to its income for AY 2010-11. These additions were based on discrepancies in gross receipts reported in the Annual Information Return (AIR) and purchases made from an entity listed as a Hawala Dealer.

What were the issues?

Whether the assessee was provided with the necessary AIR information for reconciliation and if the purchase transactions were sufficiently substantiated.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 143(3)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “B” BENCH, MUMBAI

Before: SHRI D.T. GARASIA, JM & SHRI MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL, AM

Per Manoj Kumar Aggarwal (Accountant Member) 1. The captioned appeal by assessee for Assessment Year [AY] 2010-11 assails the order of the Ld. Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals)-10 [CIT(A)], Mumbai, Appeal No. CIT(A)-10/DCIT- 5(3)/221/2012-13 dated 16/03/2015 qua confirmation of certain additions. The assessment for impugned AY was framed by Ld. Deputy ITA.No.3689/Mum/2015 Shreenath Motors Private Limited Assessment Year-2010-11 Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-5(3), Mumbai [AO] u/s 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 on 31/12/2012.

2.

The assessee, in the quantum assessment, has suffered addition of Rs.3,39,191/- on account of difference in gross receipts reflected by assessee vis-à-vis amount reflected in Annual Information Return [AIR]. Similarly, the assessee has suffered addition of Rs.35,674/- on account of purchases made from an entity which was listed as Hawala Dealer as per VAT authorities. The same has since been confirmed by Ld. CIT(A) vide impugned order dated 16/03/2015 since the assessee could not substantiate the same.

3.

The Ld. Counsel for assessee [AR], at the outset, contended that the AIR information was not made available to the assessee and therefore, the same could not be reconciled. Further, the Ld. AR pleaded for another opportunity to substantiate the purchase transactions. The Ld. DR did not raise any serious objections against the same.

4.

After hearing, we find the matter to be factual one and therefore, deem it fit to restore the same to the file of Ld. AO with a direction to provide the relevant AIR information relied upon by Ld. AO to the assessee. The assessee, in turn, is directed to reconcile the same and also substantiate the purchases transactions.

5.

Resultantly, the assessee’s appeal stands allowed for statistical purposes.

Order pronounced in the open court on 01st November, 2017.

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →