DCIT CIR 6(3)(1), MUMBAI vs. FACO FASTNERS P.LTD, MUMBAI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 1641/MUM/2017Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 October 2017AY 2010-114 pages
AI SummaryPartly Allowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) deleted the addition without properly narrating the facts or comparing them with the relied-upon judicial pronouncements. Upholding the addition to the extent of 12.5% based on the GP rate shown by the assessee.

What were the facts?

The Assessing Officer (AO) reopened the assessment and added Rs. 55,84,208/- on account of bogus purchases based on information from the sales tax department. The CIT(A) deleted this addition, finding that the assessee had provided sufficient supporting documents and the AO had not proven the purchases were bogus.

What were the issues?

Whether the CIT(A) erred in deleting the entire addition for bogus purchases without proper analysis, and to what extent the addition should be sustained.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 69C,Section 143(3),Section 147

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Cases cited in this judgment(16)Show 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.

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “J”, BENCH MUMBAI

Before: SHRI R.C.SHARMA, AM & SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN, JM

For Appellant: Shri Kartik Mehta
For Respondent: Ms. Arju Garodia, Shri Kartik Mehta
Hearing: 24/08/2017Pronounced: 26/10/2017

आदेश / O R D E R PER R.C.SHARMA (A.M): This is an appeal filed by the revenue against the order of CIT(A)- 12, Mumbai dated 16/12/2016 for the A.Y.2010-11 in the matter of order passed u/s.143(3) r.w.s. 147 of the IT Act. 2. The following grounds have been taken by the Revenue:- 1. "On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in deleting the addition of Rs. 55,84,208/- added u/s 69C of the Act, on account of bogus purchase from nine parties". 2. "On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Id CIT(A) erred in not appreciating the fact that during the course of the assessment proceedings the assessee failed to furnish various details called for by the AO, that is parties from whom the above amount of purchase was made were genuine and existed and were not mere entry providers, as recorded by the A.O. in para 4.8 of the order."

1.

3. The appellant craves leave to amend or alter any ground or add a new ground which may be necessary

3.

Rival contentions have been heard and record perused.

4.

On the basis of information from sales tax department, AO reopened assessment and made addition of Rs.55,84,208/- u/s.69C on account of bogus purchases. 5. By the impugned order, CIT(A) deleted the addition after observing as under:- It is seen that AO has erred on the facts of the case in making 100% addition of Rs.55,84,208/- on account of bogus purchases. The case has been reopened on the basis of information received from DGIT (Inv) and Maharashtra Sales Tax Department. I have carefully perused the assessment order and the appellant's written submission. During the course of appellate hearing, that the appellant submitted all ledger accounts of the conceited parties, sale and purchase bills, delivery challans, details of transportation, the supporting vouchers and copy of bank statements. It is seen that nothing has been brought out on record by the A.O. to prove that the purchases are bogus. The A.O. is also ignoring, the fact that corresponding sales have been reflected in the books and A.O. has not negated this finding. Reliance is placed on the following judicial decisions of Hon. Apex Court, Hon. Gujarat High Court, Hon. Mumbai High Court and Hon. Mumbai IT AT wherein the Hon. High Courts, Hon. IT AT and Hon. Supreme Court has opined and deleted the additions in cases of bogus purchases :

1. 1. Munjal Sales Corpn Vs CIT (2008) 168 Taxman 43 (SC) 2. CIT Vs Reliance Utilities & Power Ltd. (2009) 178 Taxman 135 (Bom) 3. Yatish Trading Co. (P) Ltd. Vs. ACIT (2011) 129 ITD 237/9 taxrnann.com 164 (Mum) 4. ITO Vs Strides Arcolab Ltd. (2012) 138 ITD 323/24 taxmann.com 89(Mum) 5. Morgan Stanley India Securities P. Ltd. Vs ACIT in IT AT, Mumbai.

6. Four Dimensions Securities (India) Ltd. Vs Addl.CIT in ITA No. 0693/M/2011ITAT, Mumbai 7. Kodak India (P) Ltd. Vs AddL CIT (IT Appeal no. 7349/Mum/2012 dated 30/4/2013) 8. ACIT 11(2) Vs. Iqbal M. Chagala, Palloni Mansion' ITA no. 877/Mum/2013, ITAT, Mumbai

9.

Hon. Mumbai High Court decision in the case of Babulal C. Borana Vs ITO (2006) 282 ITR 251.

10.

Hon. Gujarat High Court decision in case of CIT Vs MX Bros (1987) 163 ITR 249 11. Hon. Gujarat High Court decision in case of CIT Vs Nangalia Fabrics P. Ltd. (2014) 220 Taxman 17 12. Hon. Mumbai ITAT judgment date 17.6.2016 in the case of M/s. Om Shree International Vs ACIT in and ITA No. 4575/M/2012. 13. Kishanchand Chelaram Vs. CIT-125 ITR 713-SC. 14. H.R. Mehta Vs ACIT in ITA No.58 of 2001 (Bom) 15. CIT Vs. Nikunj Eximp Enterprises Pvt. Ltd. [372 ITR 619 (Bom)2015] 16. ACIT Vs. Ramila Pravin Shah (ITA I fo.5246/Mum/2013) 17. ACIT Vs.Tristar Jewellery Exports Pi. Ltd. (ITA No.7593/Mum/20ll) 18. ITO Vs. Deepak Popatlal Gala (I A No.5920/Mum/2013 and ITA No.6203/Mum/2013) 19. DCIT Vs.Rajiv G.Kalathil (ITA No.6,27/Mum/2012/RGR 20. Ramesh Kumar & Co. Vs. ACIT in ITA No.2959/MUM/2014 dt.28.11.2014. 21. Shri.Ganpatraj A.Sanghavi Vs. ACIT. in ITA No.2826/Mum/2013 dt.5.11.2014. 22. West Coast Paper Mills Vs.JCIT[100 TTJ 833(Mum)] 23. ITO Vs. A.CExport[13DTR98(Mum) 24. Unitex Products [22 SOT 429(Mum)], • 25. Teletronics Dealing System Pvt. Ltd. 53 Taxmann.com20(Mum)]. 26. Free India Assurance Services Ltd. Vs. DCIT(132 ITD 60) Mumbai Tribunal. 27. Balaji Textiles Industries Pvt. Ltd.[49 ITD 177 (Mum).] Therefore, since the facts and circumstances of the appellant’s case here is identical to the above mentioned judicial orders, Ground of Appeal No.2 is allowed.

6.

Revenue is in appeal before us.

7.

We have considered rival contentions and found that the entire addition made by the AO has been deleted by CIT(A) by stating that the facts and circumstances are similar to the facts discussed by various judicial pronouncements. However, CIT(A) neither narrated the facts of the assessee’s case nor compared the same with the facts of the various judicial pronouncements relied on by him. Keeping in view the totality of facts and circumstances of the case and the GP rate shown by assessee, we uphold the addition to the extent of 12.5%. AO is directed accordingly. 8. In the result, appeal of the revenue is allowed in part.

More judgments on Section 69C

All 8,217 judgments and leading authorities on Section 69C →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →