ACIT 19(2), MUMBAI vs. MAHESHKUMAR D CHANDAK, MUMBAI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 3154/MUM/2016Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 April 2017AY 2009-103 pages

In favour of the assessee: the Revenue's appeal was dismissed. From the AI summary of this appeal.

AI SummaryDismissed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal upheld the order of the CIT(A), finding the restriction of addition to 12.1% of bogus purchases to be fair and reasonable, in line with High Court judgments.

What were the facts?

The Assessing Officer (AO) made an addition of Rs. 32,68,914/- for bogus purchases. The CIT(A) restricted this addition to 12.1% of the said purchases.

What were the issues?

Whether the addition for bogus purchases should be restricted to the net Gross Profit (GP) rate, and if so, what is the appropriate GP rate.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 69C

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “SMC” BENCH, MUMBAI

Before: SHRI D. KARUNAKARA RAO

For Appellant: Ms. Beena Santosh, DR
Hearing: 20.03.2017Pronounced: 12.04.2017

अऩीराथी की ओय से / Appellant by : Ms. Beena Santosh, DR प्रत्मथी की ओय से/ Respondent by : None सुनवाई की तायीख / Date of Hearing : 20.03.2017 घोषणा की तायीख /Date of Pronouncement : 12.04.2017 आदेश / O R D E R

PER D. KARUNAKARA RAO, AM:

1.

This appeal filed by the Revenue on 4.5.2016 is against the order of the CIT (A)-30, Mumbai dated 19.02.2016 for the assessment year 2009-2010.

2.

The only issue raised in this appeal relates to the deletion of bogus purchases and restricting the addition to 12.1% of the said purchases. Briefly stated relevant facts of the case are that the AO made addition of Rs. 32,68,914/- u/s 69C of the Act. These purchases are said to be from the parties whose names are appeared in the official website of the Sales Tax Department. Matter travelled to the first appellate authority. 3. During the proceedings before the first appellate authority, CIT (A) restricted the addition to 12.1% of the said bogus purchases. Aggrieved with the same, Revenue is in appeal before the Tribunal. 4. During the proceedings before the Tribunal, none appeared to represent the case of the assessee. However, Ld DR for the Revenue mentioned that this is a case

More judgments on Section 69C

All 8,217 judgments and leading authorities on Section 69C →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →