What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal noted that the issue was decided in favour of the assessee for AY 2006-07 to 2008-09. However, to ensure the facts are identical, the matter was remanded to the AO for fresh examination.

The assessee appealed against an addition of Rs. 26,98,502/- on account of bogus purchases for AY 2009-2010. The assessee argued that an identical issue was decided in their favour for prior assessment years.

What were the issues?

Whether the addition on account of bogus purchases is justified. Whether the facts of the current assessment year are identical to prior years where the issue was decided in favour of the assessee.

Satyabhama V. Rajgarhia vs DCIT | ITAT Mumbai 2017

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “E” BENCH, MUMBAI

For Appellant: Shri Kirit Sanghvi

Hearing: 08.03.2017Pronounced: 12.04.2017

O R D E R

PER D. KARUNAKARA RAO, AM:

This appeal filed by the assessee on 20.5.2013 is against the order of the CIT (A)-33, Mumbai dated 18.3.2013 for the assessment year 2009-2010.

The only issue raised in this appeal relates to the addition of 26,98,502/- on account of bogus purchases. Before us, Ld Counsel for the assessee submitted that an identical issue came up for adjudication in the case of Shri Rakesh Kumar M. Gupta and his family member s. In this regard, at the outset, ld Counsel for the assessee filed copies of the order of the order of the Tribunal in the assessee’s own case for the AY 2006-07 to 2008-2009 vide to 475/Mum/2015 (AYs 2006-07 to 2008-09), dated 1.7.2016 and mentioned that the facts are identical and therefore, according to him, the matter stands covered in favour of the assessee. Bringing our attention to para 5.1 of the said Tribunal’s order (supra), Ld Counsel for the assessee submitted that the addition on account of bogus purchases stands deleted and read out the following:-

5.1. Respectfully following the said decision, delete the addition in respect of unexplained / unproved purchases in each of the assessment year ie., 2006-07, 2007- 08 and 2008-09.

Considering the above, we are of the opinion that the matter should be remanded to the file of the AO for examining the facts and the similarity of the same with that of the issues raised in the above referred AY 2006-07 to 2008-09 and decide the issue afresh after affording a reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee as per the set principles of natural justice. Accordingly, grounds raised

by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes.

4. In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open court on 12th April, 2017.

SATYABHAMA V. RAJGARHIA,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CIR 22(2), NAVI MUMBAI

What did the Tribunal hold?

What were the facts?

What were the issues?

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Recent GST High Court judgments