VIKAS KUMAR JAIN,MUMBAI vs. ITO 19(3)(5), MUMBAI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 1588/MUM/2017Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 September 2017AY 2009-102 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 Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to restrict the addition to 6.5% of the non-genuine purchases, finding no reason to interfere given the assessee's prior agreement to a similar percentage.

What were the facts?

The assessee, proprietor of M/s. Rajguru Infotech, was found to have made purchases from parties allegedly providing only accommodation bills. The Assessing Officer made an addition of 12.5% of these purchases, which was later restricted to 6.5% by the CIT(A).

What were the issues?

The primary issue was the quantum of addition to be made on account of alleged bogus purchases. The assessee contested the percentage of addition applied by the revenue authorities.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 148

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Cases cited in this judgment(1)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, “SMC” Bench, Mumbai

Before: Shri B.R. Baskaran (AM)

For Respondent: Shri Ram Tiwari
Hearing: 18.9.2017Pronounced: 18.9.2017

The appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order dated 23.12.2016 passed by the learned CIT(A)-30, Mumbai and it relates to A.Y. 2009-10. The assessee is aggrieved by the decision of the learned CIT(A) in partially confirming the addition relating to bogus purchases made by the Assessing Officer.

2.

None appeared on behalf of the assessee, even though notice of hearing was sent to the assessee by registered post on more than one occasion. Hence, I proceed to dispose of the appeal ex-parte, without presence of the assessee.

3.

The assessee herein is the proprietor of a concern named M/s. Rajguru Infotech, which is engaged in the business of trading in computer peripherals. Consequent to the information received from the Sales Tax Department that certain parties are indulging in providing only accommodation bills without actually supplying the material and upon noticing that the assessee has purchased goods to the tune of ` 288.95 lakhs from such dealers during the year under consideration, the Assessing Officer reopened the assessment of 2 Shri Vikas Kumar Jain the year under consideration by issuing notice u/s. 148 of the Act. The Assessing Officer completed assessment by adding 12.5% of the alleged bogus purchases, which worked out to ` 36.11 lakhs. Before the learned CIT(A), the assessee explained the ratio of decision rendered by Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in the case of Simith P. Sheth (356 ITR 451) and submitted that addition should be around 6% only. The learned CIT(A) accordingly, restricted the addition to 6.5% of the value of non-genuine purchase. Still aggrieved, the assessee has filed this appeal before the Tribunal.

4.

I heard learned Departmental Representative and perused the record. Since the assessee has agreed for addition @ 6% of the value of bogus purchases and since the learned CIT(A) has sustained the addition to the extent of 6.5% only, I do not find any reason to interfere with the order passed by the learned CIT(A) on this issue.

5.

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed. Order has been pronounced in the Court on 18.9.2017.

More judgments on Section 148

All 35,022 judgments and leading authorities on Section 148 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →