ASHOK BHANSALI,MUMBAI vs. ITO 20(1)(2), MUMBAI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 1174/MUM/2017Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 May 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 assessee's counsel submitted that they did not wish to press the appeal and wanted to withdraw it. The Tribunal permitted the withdrawal.

What were the facts?

The assessee filed an appeal against the CIT(A)'s order which upheld the reopening of assessment and estimated profit on bogus purchases. The Assessing Officer had estimated profit at 12.5%, which was reduced to 3.05% by the CIT(A).

What were the issues?

The primary issues were the validity of reopening the assessment and the estimation of profit on alleged bogus purchases.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 147

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, MUMBAI BENCHES “SMC”, MUMBAI

Before: Shri Shamim Yahya

For Appellant: Shri Naveen Kumar Mishra, Shri B.Satyanarayana Raju
For Respondent: Shri B.Satyanarayana Raju
Hearing: 16.05.2017Pronounced: 16.05.2017

O R D E R This appeal by the assessee is directed against order of learned CIT(A) dated 22.12.2016 and pertains to assessment year 2009-10.

2.

The grounds of appeal

1.

read as under:- “1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law the Hon’ble CIT(A) erred in upholding the assessing officer’s action in reopening the assessment u/s 147 of the IT Act 1961 and the reason assigned for doing so are wrong and contrary to the provision of Income Tax Act and rules made there under.

2. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law the Hon’ble CIT(A) wrongly erred in directing the Ld AO to estimate profit @ 3.05% of the alleged bogus purchase as unexplained income and the reasons assigned for doing so are wrong and contrary to the provision of Income Tax and rules made there under.

3. The appellant craves leave to add to, amend, alter or delete any of the above grounds of appeal on or before the date of hearing.”

. Shri Ashok Bhansali 3. In this case, on account of bogus purchases, the Assessing Officer has estimated a profit of 12.5% of the total amount of purchases. The learned CIT(A) has restricted the estimated profit to 3.05%, against this order, the assessee is in appeal before the ITAT.

4.

At the outset, the learned Counsel of the assessee submitted that he did not wish to press this appeal and wanted to withdraw the appeal under consideration. The assessee is permitted to withdraw the appeal. Accordingly, this appeal is dismissed as withdrawn.

More judgments on Section 147

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →