NINAD SHIVANAND KULLY,THANE vs. ITO WARD - 3(1) THANE, THANE
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal held that while the purchases might be suspicious, the AO erred in adding the entire purchase amount to the assessee's income, especially since the corresponding sales were not rejected. The Tribunal reduced the addition to 12.5% of the purchase price.
What were the facts?
The Assessing Officer (AO) received information from the Sales Tax Department regarding suspicious purchases made by the assessee from M/s Dev Enterprises. The supplier admitted to providing only bills and refunding cash after deducting commission, leading the AO to treat the entire purchase amount as bogus.
What were the issues?
Whether the entire amount of purchases from a suspicious party can be added to the assessee's income when the corresponding sales are not rejected. The quantum of addition for bogus purchases.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “SMC”, BENCH MUMBAI
Before: SHRI R.C.SHARMA, AM Shri Ninad Shivanand Kully,
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)- 2, Thane, dated 29/03/2017 for the A.Y.2009-10 in the matter of order passed u/s.143(3) r.w.s. 147 of the IT Act.
In this appeal, assessee is aggrieved for upholding addition on account of bogus purchases.
Nobody appeared on behalf of assessee inspite of service of notice nor any adjournment petition was filed, therefore, Bench decided to dispose the appeal after hearing the learned DR and considering the material placed on record Shri Ninad Shivanand Kully 4. Rival contentions have been heard and record perused. In this case, the AO has received information from the Sales Tax Department that the assessee has affected purchases from M/s Dev Enterprises, Rs.4,70.259/-, which was declared as suspicious, The party, in his statements / on the basis of spot verification / survey action, duly admitted the fact that it had not actually delivered any goods, but merely provided the bills and refunded hack cash to the buyer, after deducting the nominal commission. The AO treated the entire purchases of Rs.4,70,259/- from above referred party, as bogus and added back to the income of the assessee.
By the impugned order, CIT(A) upheld the entire addition made by the AO.
Assessee is in further appeal before us.
I have considered the contentions of learned DR and carefully gone through the orders of the authorities below. From the record, I found that assessee is engaged in the manufacturing of rectifier and control panel which are mainly exported. The said assessment was reopened u/s 147 and a notice dared 26th September.2013 along with copy of reasons recorded for issue of notice u/s 148 of the IT Act, stating that Sales Tax Department, Government of Maharashtra have informed that certain parties have issued bogus bills without any transaction and in the case of assessee the issue related to purchases from M/S Dev Enterprises of Rs. 470259/-.
More judgments on Section 147
- ACIT Central Bilaspur, Bilaspur vs Arun Kumar Agrawal, SaktiITSSA 26/RPR/2025[2018-19]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2018-19
- Vinod Agrawal, Kawardha vs Assisstant Commissioner of Income Tax…ITA 666/RPR/2026[2019-20]Status: Heard21 Oct 2026AY 2019-20
- Sar Business Tradelink Private Limited… vs Income Tax Officer, Ward - 1(2), RaipurITA 599/RPR/2026[2014-15]Status: Heard21 Oct 2026AY 2014-15
- Tarunaben Maganlal Bhut, Navagam vs ITO Ward 2(2)(1), RajkotITA 673/RJT/2026[2024-25]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2024-25
- Neo Incorporation, Rajkot vs DCIT Circle- 1(2), RajkotITA 471/RJT/2026[2012-2013]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2012-2013
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- Shri Yaras Suresh Babu Prabhu Kumar vs. The Union Of INDIATelangana · 27 Oct 2026
- Santa Singh vs. SuperintendentUttarakhand · 27 Oct 2026
- Azaad Builders vs. Assistant Commissioner SGSTUttarakhand · 27 Oct 2026
- Ganesh Trimbak Saraf And Another vs. The State Of Maharashtra And AnotherBombay · 26 Oct 2026
- M/S Monolith Resorts Private Limited vs. The CommissionerUttarakhand · 26 Oct 2026