ASHOK BHANDARI,MUMBAI vs. ITO 19(1)(2), MUMBAI
In favour of the Revenue: the assessee's appeal was dismissed. From the AI summary of this appeal.
What did the Tribunal hold?
The CIT(A) upheld the addition of 12.5% of the bogus purchases but directed the AO to reduce the Gross Profit (GP) already declared by the assessee on these purchases. The Tribunal found no infirmity in the CIT(A)'s order.
What were the facts?
The assessee appealed against an addition made on account of bogus purchases. The Assessing Officer (AO) found that the assessee failed to produce necessary documents for purchases from certain parties, who later admitted to no transactions. The AO estimated profit on these purchases.
What were the issues?
Whether the addition made on account of bogus purchases, after estimating GP, is justified. Whether the CIT(A) correctly restricted the addition while providing further relief on declared GP.
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, “SMC”, BENCH MUMBAI
Before: SHRI R.C.SHARMA, AM Shri Ashok Bhandari
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)- 29, Mumbai dated 09/02/2017 for A.Y.2010-11 in the matter of order passed u/s.143(3) r.w.s. 147 of the IT Act. 2. In this appeal, assessee is aggrieved for upholding the part of addition made on account of bogus purchases. 3. Nobody appeared on behalf of assessee inspite of giving opportunity, therefore, Bench decided to dispose the appeal after hearing the learned DR and considering the material placed on record. 3. I have gone through the orders of the authorities below and found that bogus purchases were found during the year amounting to Rs.2,04,93,150/-. The AO stated in the assessment order that barring the Shri Ashok Bhandari ledger account and cheque payment details, no other documents like delivery challans, lorry receipts, transportation details etc were produced during the course of assessment proceedings. Further these alleged hawala parties have admitted in front of the sates tax department that they have not made any sale or purchase transactions. This clearly shows that the purchases shown to have been made by the assessee from these firms are non genuine. Further, the AO tried to independently verify the genuineness of the purchases by issuing notices u/s. 133(6) to these parties which were returned unserved by the postal authorities. The assessee was also asked to produce the suppliers for verification but the assessee failed to produce them. Further, the assessee has shown corresponding sales on these purchases. Therefore, it was presumed by the AO that the assessee has purchased goods from the grey market probably without bills and had taken accommodation bills from the alleged parties. The AO relying on the decision of CIT vs. Simit P. Sheth 356 ITR 451 estimated the additional GP @12.5% of the alleged bogus purchases. In view of this overwhelming adverse information, the AO has estimated the additional GP @12.5% of the alleged hawala purchases.
After considering the facts and circumstances of the case and applying various judicial pronouncements, the CIT(A) restricted the addition to the extent of 12.5% and has given further relief by directing the AO to reduce the GP rate declared by the assessee. The precise observation of CIT(A) was as under:-
Shri Ashok Bhandari 4.3.3. In view of the above, the addition made by the AO of Rs.25,61,644/- being 12.5% of the bogus purchases is upheld. However, the AO is directed to reduce the GP already declared by the appellant on these purchases. This ground of appeal is partly allowed.
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 →- Ayush Sureshchandra Shah vs. State Of GujaratGujarat · 27 Oct 2026
- Sureshchandra Moolchand Shah vs. State Of GujaratGujarat · 27 Oct 2026
- M/S Larsen And Toubro Limited vs. Joint Commissioner Of Central GST And Anr.Delhi · 27 Oct 2026
- T C Global INDIA Private Limited vs. Principal Commissioner Of Central GST, North DelhiDelhi · 27 Oct 2026
- Kamlasana Impex Private Limited vs. Director General Of GST Intelligence (Hq) Delhi) & Anr.Delhi · 27 Oct 2026