DCIT 32(2), MUMBAI vs. MAFATLAL M. SHAH, MUMBAI

The sole issue raised by the revenue is against the deletion of additions of Rs.16,57,919/- and Rs.16,63,032/- for the assessment years 2009-10 and 2010-11 respectively against the additions of Rs.46,05,331/- and 46,19,532/- respectively made by the AO at the rate of 12.5% of the bogus purchases.

At the outset, the ld.AR submitted before the Bench that in the very same case, the appeals filed by the assessee in and 3905/Mum/2015 for the assessment years 2009-10 and 2010-11 respectively have already been decided by the Tribunal vide order dated 19.5.2017, therefore, the appeals of the revenue become in fructuous and hence be dismissed.

The ld. DR, very fairly agreed to the submissions made by the ld.AR.

After hearing the rival parties and considering the submissions, we find that the Co-ordinate Bench of the Tribunal in ITA Nos.3904 and 3905/Mum/2015 for the assessment years 2009-10 and 2010-11 (supra) have already disposed of the appeal of the assessee in the case of assessee by observing and holding as under : “5. We have heard Ld. Sr. DR and gone through the facts and circumstances of the case. The facts of the case are that the assessee is in the business of contractor of BMC, sub-contractor and repair contractor etc. To carry out the contract work the assessee claimed to have made purchases through account payee cheques and claimed that material purchased has been utilized/ consumed and the items purchased have been paid through banking channel. It was explained that the construction material so purchased by the assessee has been utilized in the execution of civil contracts awarded by the Govt. agencies like MMRDA or BMC. The assessee claimed that the purchase expenses have been corroborated by various evidences and assessee had made purchases from various parties but in absence of proper bills, they could have taken bills from parties which were later on declared by the Sales Tax Department of Maharashtra Govt. as hawala parties / suspicious dealers. The assessee before CIT(A) as well as AO only requested for estimation of profit rate and CIT(A) accordingly estimated the same. We find no infirmity in the order of CIT(A) and hence the same is confirmed. As regards to AY 2010-11, the same are the fact and hence, the order of CIT(A) in that appeal also confirmed” . In view of the above facts, the appeals of the revenue become infructuous and hence dismissed as infructuous.

In the result, the appeal of the revenue stand dismissed.