DCIT RG 9(1)(1), MUMBAI vs. ABHISEK EDIFICE P.LTD, MUMBAI

The present Appeal filed by the revenue is against the order of Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-16, Mumbai dated 29.08.16 for AY 2011-12.

At the very outset, it is noticed that none has appeared on behalf of assessee and even no application for adjournment was moved. On the other hand Ld. DR is present in the court and is ready with arguments. Therefore we have decided to proceed with the hearing of the case ex-parte with the assistance of the Ld. DR and the material on record.

As per the facts of the present case, the assessee filed its return of income for the year under consideration declaring total income at Rs. 1,74,39,343/-. The return was processed u/s 143(1) of the I.T. Act, 1961. Subsequently, information was received by the AO from DGIT(Inv.), Mumbai related to bogus purchase entries received from the Sales Tax Department, Maharashtra. The AO had information that some of the parties from whom the assessee had made purchases were bogus and they are engaged in the business of providing bills without actual delivery of goods. The case was reopened u/s 147 of the I.T. Act and after carrying out investigations and after seeking reply from the assessee, disallowed the claim of purchase amounting to Rs. 1,75,51,676/- as bogus purchases and added the same to the total income of the assessee in the order u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 147 of the I.T. Act passed on 21.03.15. Aggrieved by the order of AO, assessee preferred appeal before Ld. CIT(A) and Ld. CIT(A) after considering the case of both the parties partly allowed the appeal of the assessee. Now before us, the revenue has preferred the appeal by raising the above grounds.

The sole ground raised by the assessee relates to challenging the order of Ld. CIT(A) in restricting the disallowance @ 12.5% of the net purchases.

We have heard Ld. DR and we have also perused the material placed on record as well as the orders passed by revenue authorities. We find that Ld. CIT(A) after considering the facts of the present case as well as orders passed by AO had reached to the conclusion that since the AO has not doubted the consumption /sales, therefore in these circumstances, the motive behind obtaining bogus bills by the assessee thus, appears to be inflation of purchase price so as to suppress true profits. The Ld. CIT(A) after considering various judicial pronouncements as mentioned in its order, estimated the suppress profit @ 12.5% of the purchases made from bogus entities as the suppress profit element was embedded in such purchases. No new facts or contrary judgments have been brought on record before us in order to controvert or rebut the findings so recorded by Ld CIT (A). The Ld. CIT(A) while reaching to the conclusion had relied upon several judgments of Hon’ble Supreme Court, High Courts and Tribunal. There are no reasons for us to interfere into or deviate from the findings recorded by the Ld. CIT (A). Hence, we are of the considered view that the findings so recorded by the Ld. CIT (A) are judicious and are well reasoned. Resultantly, the grounds raised