RENIKA B SHAH,MUMBAI vs. DCIT 29(3), MUMBAI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 6661/MUM/2016Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 April 2017AY 2009-103 pages
AI SummaryPartly Allowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal noted that the assessee's declared GP rate was higher than in a previous year accepted by the department. Therefore, the addition was restricted to 5% of the bogus purchases.

What were the facts?

The assessee's assessment was reopened based on information about accommodation bills for purchases. The Assessing Officer added 12.5% of the alleged bogus purchases to the assessee's income. The CIT(A) upheld this addition.

What were the issues?

Whether the addition made on account of bogus purchases should be sustained, and if so, to what extent, considering the assessee's declared GP rate.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 143(3),Section 147

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “SMC”, BENCH MUMBAI

Before: SHRI R.C.SHARMA, AM Smt. Ranuka B. Shah

For Appellant: Shri D.C. Jain
For Respondent: Ms. Beena Santosh
Hearing: 20/04/2017Pronounced: 26/04/2017

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)- 40, Mumbai dated 19/08/2016 for the A.Y.2009-10 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 addition made by applying 12.5% on the bogus purchases made by assessee during the year. 3. Facts in brief are that the assessee is an Individual, deriving income from proprietary business carried on under the name and style M/s. Mukti Garments engaged in the business of trading in Garments, Return of Income voluntarily filed on 23/09/2009 declaring total income at Rs.7,56,870/-. The assessment was reopened u/s.148 based on the information received from sales tax department stating that extensive investigation on the various VAT dodgers, who were know to be issuing Smt. Renuka B. Shah accommodation bills, The assessee is beneficiary who allegedly booked purchases worth Rs.1,47,44,517/- The assessee produced and filed the details and explanation in respect of purchases made. The learned Assessing Officer without accepting the details and explanation of the assessee, made the addition of Rs.18,43,065/- to the income, determined in the order passed u/s.143(3) dated 30/12/2011.

4.

By the impugned order, CIT(A) restricted the addition to 12.5% of such purchases, against which assessee is in further appeal before us.

5.

I have considered rival contentions and gone through the orders of the authorities below and found from record that assessee has declared GP of 12.19% during the year under consideration, which is better than GP rate declared by assessee in the A.Y.2008-09 at 11.19% which was also accepted by the Department in the scrutiny assessment u/s.143(3) vide order dated 30/02/2011.

6.

Keeping in view the totality of facts and circumstances vis-à-vis, GP accepted by the Department under scrutiny assessment, I direct AO to restrict addition to the extent of 5% of such bogus purchases. I direct accordingly.

More judgments on Section 147

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →