ITO 29(2)(1), MUMBAI vs. KIRAN NAVIN DOSHI, MUMBAI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 3190/MUM/2016Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 April 2017AY 2009-102 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 held that the CIT(A) took a fair view by restricting the addition to 12.5% of the bogus purchases, aligning with settled legal positions from High Court judgments.

What were the facts?

The Assessing Officer made an addition of Rs. 41,23,015/- on account of bogus purchases. The CIT(A) restricted this addition to Rs. 5,15,377/-, which is 12.5% of the alleged bogus purchases.

What were the issues?

Whether the CIT(A) was justified in restricting the addition on account of bogus purchases to 12.5% of the purchase value.

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 RAOSmt. Kiran Navin Doshi,

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 5.5.2016 is against the order of the CIT (A)-40, Mumbai dated 10.02.2016 for the assessment year 2009-2010.

2.

The only issue raised in this appeal relates to the CIT (A)’s decision in restricting the addition u/s 69C of the Act to Rs. 5,15,377/-. Briefly stated relevant facts of the case are that the AO made addition of Rs. 41,23,015/- u/s 69C of the Act on account of bogus purchases. 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 12.5% 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 where the CIT (A) restricted the addition to net GP of 12.5%. Ld DR relied on the order of the AO dutifully.

More judgments on Section 69C

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →