ASST CIT 15(3)(1), MUMBAI vs. SAVAIR ENERGY LTD, NAVI MUMBAI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 4216/MUM/2016Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai01 November 2017AY 2009-103 pages

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

AI SummaryDismissed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal confirmed the order of the CIT(A) by following its own previous order in a similar case for AY 2010-11. The facts and circumstances were found to be the same.

What were the facts?

The revenue is aggrieved by the CIT(A)'s order restricting an addition on account of alleged bogus purchases to 11%. The assessee faced a similar addition in AY 2010-11 which was restricted to 10% by the CIT(A) and confirmed by the Tribunal.

What were the issues?

Whether the addition on account of alleged bogus purchases should be sustained and to what extent, considering similar past assessments.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 143(3),Section 147

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

For Appellant: Dr. P.Daniel,Ld.AR

Per Manoj Kumar Aggarwal (Accountant Member) 1. The captioned appeal by revenue for Assessment Year [AY] 2009- 10 assails the order of the Ld. Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals)- 24 [CIT(A)], Mumbai, Appeal No. CIT(A)-22/DCIT 10(3)/IT-229/13-14 dated 31/03/2016. The assessment was framed by Ld. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax-10(3), Mumbai [AO] u/s 143(3) read with ITA.No.4216/Mum/2016 Savair Energy Limited Assessment Year-2009-10 Section 147 of the Income Tax Act,1961 on 31/12/2013. The revenue is aggrieved by action of Ld. CIT(A) in restricting the addition on account of certain alleged bogus purchases of Rs.1,65,15,836/- to 11% of such purchases.

2.

The respective representative, at the outset, drew our attention to the fact that the assessee suffered similar addition on account of bogus purchases in AY 2010-11 which was restricted to 10% by Ld. CIT(A). The revenue carried the matter, in similar manner, before this Tribunal vide order dated 18/08/2017 where the stand of Ld. CIT(A) has been confirmed and therefore, similar view may be taken in the matter.

3.

We have perused the cited order of the Tribunal. We find that the assessee suffered similar additions in AY 2010-11 which was restricted to 10% by Ld. CIT(A) and the same has been confirmed by the Tribunal. Therefore, facts and circumstances being the same, taking the same view, we confirm the stand of Ld. CIT(A) and dismiss revenue’s appeal.

4.

Resultantly, the revenue’s appeal stands dismissed. Order pronounced in the open court on 01st November, 2017.

More judgments on Section 147

All 49,210 judgments and leading authorities on Section 147 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →