AXIS REALTY P. LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT 9(1), MUMBAI
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal held that since the sales made by the assessee were not doubted and the assessee likely purchased materials from the grey market, a profit estimation was necessary. Following the Gujarat High Court's decision, the Tribunal estimated a profit rate of 12.5% on the bogus purchases.
What were the facts?
The assessee company, engaged in property development and real estate consultancy, was found to have obtained bogus purchase bills from parties admitting to providing such entries. The Assessing Officer added the entire amount of bogus purchases to the returned income.
What were the issues?
The primary issue was the estimation of profit on bogus purchases when the sales made from such purchases were not doubted. The Tribunal had to determine the appropriate method to tax the benefit derived from such transactions.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Cases cited in this judgment(1)Show listHide 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.
- CIT v. Simit P. Sheth1,465 citing356 ITR 451 · 2013 · HC
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “A” BENCH, MUMBAI
Before: SHRI MAHAVIR SINGH, & SHRI N. K. PRADHAN, AM
स िवाई की तारीख / : 26.09.2017 Date of Hearing घोर्णा की तारीख / : 11.10.2017 Date of Pronouncement आदेश / O R D E R
Per Mahavir Singh, JM:
This appeal by the Revenue is arising out of the order of Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-20, Mumbai [in Short CIT(A)] in Appeal No. CIT(A)-20/DCIT-9(1)/IT- 31/2014-15 dated 08.02.2016. The Assessment was framed by Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-9(1), Mumbai (in short DCIT or AO) for the A.Y. 2011-12 vide his order dated 20.03.2014 under section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961(hereinafter ‘the Act’).
(A.Y. 2011-12) Axis Realty Private Limited vs. Dy. CIT 2. The only issue in this appeal of assessee is against the order of the ld. CIT(A) restricting the addition by applying profit @ 40% of the bogus purchases u/s. 69C of the Act.
Briefly stated facts are that the assessee company is engaged in the business of development and construction of properties and also providing consultancy in real estate. During the course of assessment proceedings, the A.O. noticed from the information received from DGIT, Mumbai that the assessee is involved in obtaining bogus bills of purchase of material from the parties who are already admitted before Maharashtra Sales Tax Department that they are providing bogus bills for purchase to the beneficiaries. The assessee being one of the beneficiaries has shown bogus purchases from following parties:
27730562486V REVIKA TRADE IMPEX PVT AADCR3729H 2010-11 227,056 LTD 27650564276V JINDAL STEEL CORPORATION ALEPB6133C 2010-11 564,370 27870543397V RUMEET ENTERPRISES AAIPU8001H 2010-11 228,208 27950675467V JINALAY TRADING PVT LTD AACCJ0495P 2010-11 396,036 27120359558V SUNNY INTERNATIONAL AAAHS0592H 2010-11 365,601 TOTAL 17,81,271
Accordingly, the A.O. added the entire bogus purchases to the returned income of the assessee. Aggrieved, the assessee preferred an appeal before the ld. CIT(A) who after considering the submissions of the assessee and also the fact that the assessee has only obtained bills from these hawala parties, but has made purchases from grey market, he restricted the addition at 40% of the bogus purchase of Rs.17,81,271/-, which comes to Rs.7,12,508/-. Aggrieved, the assessee preferred an appeal before the Tribunal.
We have heard the rival contentions and gone through the facts and circumstances of the case. Admitted facts are that the above parties were involved in providing accommodation entries of bogus purchases and rather they were providing only bogus (A.Y. 2011-12) Axis Realty Private Limited vs. Dy. CIT bills of purchase. The assessee is one of the beneficiaries of the same. The A.O. or the CIT(A) has not doubted the sales made by the assessee out of the bogus purchases. The assessee is engaged in the business of development and construction of properties and also providing consultancy in real estate. Once the sale is made by assessee and which is not doubted, it means that the assessee has procured bills from the entry provider and presumably the material is purchased from grey market without payment of Maharashtra VAT. The assessee might have purchased at lower price, which is not verifiable. In such circumstances, we have no alternative except to estimate the profit rate, i.e., the NP rate earned by assessee on the savings he has made of Maharashtra VAT and purchase of items at a lower price. We take guidance from the judgment of Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in the case of CIT vs. Smith P. Seth (2013) 356 ITR 451 (Guj), wherein Hon’ble Gujarat High Court has applied profit rate at 12.5% on the bogus purchases. Respectfully following the same, we also will estimate the profit rate at 12.5% and restrict the addition accordingly. According to us, a reasonable profit rate of 12.5% will meet the end of justice. We direct the A.O. to apply profit rate at 12.5% and add the same to the return income of both the assessee’s.
More judgments on Section 69C
- Jitendrakumar Bhikhabhai Shrimali, Mehsana vs ITO Ward 1, MehsaanaITA 1290/AHD/2026[2017-18]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2017-18
- Sonu Jain, Agra vs ITO WD(1)(1)(2), AgraITA 671/AGR/2026[2024-25]Status: Disposed16 Oct 2026AY 2024-25
- Mritunjay Singh, Kudra vs AO, SasaramITA 454/PAT/2026[2017-2018]Status: Disposed16 Oct 2026AY 2017-2018
- Shantilal Mafaji Kachchhava, Banaskantha vs ITO WD 1 Palanpur, PalanpurITA 2256/AHD/2026[2023-24]Status: Disposed16 Oct 2026AY 2023-24
- Madhusudhan Gade, Nizamabad vs ITO., Ward-1, NizamabadITA 379/HYD/2025[2017-18]Status: Disposed16 Oct 2026AY 2017-18
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- M/S Kotdwar Steel Limited vs. Office Of Hte Deputy CommissionerUttarakhand · 28 Oct 2026
- M/S Kotdwar Steel Limited vs. Office Of The Deputy CommissionerUttarakhand · 28 Oct 2026
- M/S Kotdwar Steel Limited vs. Office Of The Deputy CommissionerUttarakhand · 28 Oct 2026
- Vandemataram Projects Private Limited vs. Raipur Development AuthorityChhattisgarh · 27 Oct 2026
- M/S Surya Prakash Aroma vs. State Of Uttar Pradesh And 2 OthersAllahabad · 27 Oct 2026