INERTECH FITTINGS INDIA P.LTD,MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT 15(2)(1), MUMBAI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 2033/MUM/2017Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 October 2017AY 2010-113 pages

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

AI SummaryDismissed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The assessee's counsel requested to withdraw both appeals. The revenue's counsel had no objection to the withdrawal. Consequently, the Tribunal dismissed both appeals as withdrawn.

What were the facts?

The assessee filed appeals against the orders of the CIT(A) for AY 2010-11 and 2011-12, which were based on reassessment proceedings. The appeals raised grounds concerning the validity of reopening and the disallowance of alleged bogus purchases.

What were the issues?

The primary issue was the validity of the reopening of assessment and the subsequent disallowance of purchases. However, the appeals were withdrawn before these issues could be adjudicated.

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, “J”, BENCH MUMBAI

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

For Appellant: Shri Bharat S. Desai
For Respondent: Ms. Arju Garodia
Hearing: 24/08/2017Pronounced: 26/10/2017

आदेश / O R D E R PER R.C.SHARMA (A.M):

1.

These are the appeals filed by the assessee against the order of CIT(A)-24, Mumbai dated 06/01/2017 for A.Y.2010-11 & 2011-12 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 assessee:- 1) Based on facts and circumstances of the case Assessing officer erred in reopening the assessment and Id. CIT(A) also failed to appreciate that – a) The assessing officer erred in rejecting the preliminary objections raised on the reopening of the assessment. b) Assessing officer ought to have given copies of evidence and document in his possession relying on which he concluded that there is indeed income which has escaped the assessment.

2034/Mum/2017 M/s. Intertech Fittings India Pvt. Ltd., c) Reopening of assessment was unlawful, injudicious, without considering facts of the case, arbitrary, unilateral, without considering submissions of the assessee and needs to be reconsidered. 2) Based on facts and circumstances of the case assessing officer erred in disallowing the alleged bogus purchases amounting to Rs. 13,26,887/-and making the addition to income and learned CIT(A) also failed to consider the following points- a) Before making addition to the income assessing officer ought to have considered submissions of the assessee. b) assessing officer failed to appreciate that assessee be given a proper opportunity to defend himself, assessee ought to have been given an opportunity to cross examine witnesses and examine statement of witnesses extracted by assessing officer. c) Addition to income is without considering submissions of assessee, without giving an opportunity to assessee to protect himself, without examining the details filed by assessee, unlawful, injudicious, unilateral, arbitrary and needs to be deleted. 3) Based on facts and circumstances of the case Learned CIT (Appeal) failed to appreciate that the addition made by A.O is based on presuming the income considering gross profit percentage as basis and also failed to consider that-a) Before making presumptive assessment assessing officer ought to have conclusively established case of bogus purchase in hands of assessee. b) Assessing officer eared in making assessment based on assumptions, presumptions, estimates, surmises and premises. Assessing officer failed to appreciate that there is no basis for estimating bogus purchases at gross profit percentage of alleged bogus purchase from same parties. c) Addition is made based on assumptions, estimates, presumptions, is arbitrary, injudicious unilateral without considering facts of the case and without considering submissions by assessee and needs to be deleted, 4) The appellant craves leave to add, amend, alter / vary and / or withdraw / any or all the above grounds of appeal.

3. Similar addition was made by the AO in the A.Y.2011-12.

4.

At the outset, learned AR placed on record letter dated 17/08/2017 requesting for withdrawal of both the appeals.

More judgments on Section 147

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →