ITO 32(1)(1), MUMBAI vs. ABHAY AUTOMOTIVE COMPANY, MUMBAI

This appeal filed by the Revenue on 01.08.2016 is against the order of the CIT (A)-44, Mumbai dated 25.5.2016 for the assessment year 2009-2010. In this appeal, Revenue raised the following grounds and the same read as under:- “1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld CIT (A) erred in restricting addition to Rs. 6,03,737/- (@ 13.76% of Rs. 43,87,622/-) u/s 69C of the Act on account of bogus purchases as against addition of Rs. 43,87,622/- made by the AO without appreciating that the assessee has not produced any cogent evidence to substantiate the fact that he had taken actual delivery of goods purchased from the parties and that the notices u/s 133(6) issued to the parties from whom alleged bills were received were returned undelivered by the postal authorities with the remark „not available at this address‟ and the assessee has also failed to produce the purchase parties before the AO.

During the proceedings before the first appellate authority, CIT (A) relied on the judgment of the Hon‟ble jurisdictional High Court in the case of Nickunj Eximp Enterprises Pvt Ltd vs. ACIT vide Writ petition No. 2860 of 2012, dated 18th June, 2014 and disproved the addition made by the AO u/s 69C of the Act. Further, relying on the ratio laid down by the Hon‟ble Gujarat High Court in the case of CIT vs. Simit P. Sheth, of 2012, dated 16.1.2013, CIT (A) restricted the addition to 13.76% of such alleged bogus purchases of Rs. 43,87,622/-. Aggrieved with the relief granted by the CIT (A), Revenue is in appeal before the Tribunal by raising the above grounds.

During the proceedings before us, none appeared to represent the assessee‟s case. Considering the covered nature of the issues, we proceed to adjudicate this appeal on merits with the help of the Ld DR for the Revenue.

On the other hand, Ld DR for the Revenue dutifully relied on the order of the AO and the view taken by him.

On hearing both the parties and on perusal of the orders of the Revenue Authorities in general and the contents of para 4.7 of the CIT (A)‟s order in particular, we find the same are relevant in this regard. Considering the significance of the said para for the sake of completeness of this order, relevant portion from the said para is extracted as under:- “4.7..........Therefore, after considering the totality of facts and after following the raio of Saraswathi Oil Traders vs. CIT (SC) cited supra, I am of the opinion that it is the profit element on the total component in dispute which needs to be added to the income of the appellant. The total amount which is being treated as bogus by the AO is rs. 43,87,622/-. The appellant has shown a gross profit rate of 13.76%. Thus, 13.76% of Rs. 43,87,622/- which is Rs. 6,03,737/- is accordingly confirmed out of an addition of Rs. 43,87,622/- and the balance is deleted. Grounds of appeal nos. 1, 2 and 3 are therefore partly allowed.”