OIL SEALS MANUFACTURING COMPANY P. LTD,MUMBAI vs. ITO WD 2(2)(4), MUMBAI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 3943/MUM/2016Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 December 2016AY 2009-103 pages
AI SummaryPartly Allowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal found the assessee's disclosed GP rates to be reasonable and upheld an addition of 5% of the bogus purchases, aligning with the VAT tax rate on purchases.

What were the facts?

The assessee's purchases were treated as bogus by the AO, who made additions based on a GP rate. The CIT(A) restricted the addition to 12.5% of the bogus purchases.

What were the issues?

Whether the addition on account of bogus purchases should be sustained, and if so, at what rate.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 143(3),Section 147

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Cases cited in this judgment(1)Show list

Detected automatically from the text. Citations are also linked where they appear in the judgment. The count shows how many other judgments on BharatTax rely on the same authority.

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “SMC”, BENCH MUMBAI

Before: SHRI R.C.SHARMA, AM

For Appellant: Shri Prakash G Jhunjhunwala &, Shri Poojan Mehta
For Respondent: Shri S.R.Kirtane
Hearing: 19/12/2016Pronounced: 23/12/2016

Heard together (2 matters)

ITA No.3943/Mum/2016
ITA No.3944/Mum/2016

Read from the judgment's own cause title. This page is filed under one of them.

आदेश / O R D E R PER R.C.SHARMA (A.M): These are the appeals filed by the assessee against the order of CIT(A) for the assessment year 2009-10 and 2011-12, in the matter of addition made on account of bogus purchases. 2. Rival contentions have been heard and record perused. 3. In the course of assessment made u/s.143(3) r.w.s. 147 of the IT Act, AO made an addition on account of purchases made by the assessee on the plea that these are bogus purchases. AO applied GP rate of 32% in the assessment year 2009-10 and 32.85% in the assessment year 2011-12 of such bogus purchases and made an addition.

1.

2 & 3944/Mum/2016 Oil Seals Manufacturing Company Pvt. Ltd., 4. By the impugned order CIT(A) restricted the addition to the extent of 12.5% of such bogus purchases against which assessee is in further appeal before us. Assessee is in further appeal before us.

5.

I have considered rival contentions and carefully gone through the orders of the authorities below and found that CIT(A) has restricted the addition to 12.5% by following the decision of Gujarat High Court in case of Simit P Sheth 356 ITR 451. Contention of learned AR was that rate of VAT in the case applied by CIT(A) was 12.5% whereas in the instant case, the rate of VAT tax on purchase was just 5%.

6.

We found that comparative rate of gross profit disclosed by the assessee during the assessment year 2009-10 was 32%, 2010-11 was 34.73% and 2011-12 was 33.73%. Thus, the GP rate shown by the assessee appears to be quite reasonable looking to the nature of trade assessee was involved. Under these facts and circumstances upholding addition of 5% being rate of VAT tax on purchases as applicable to the assessee during the years under consideration will serve the purpose of justice. Accordingly, I upheld the addition of Rs.1,95,376/- as against addition of Rs.4,88,440/- upheld by the CIT(A) in the assessment year 2009-10. In the assessment year 2011-12, I uphold addition of 5% being rate of VAT tax on purchase which amounts to be Rs.99,827/- as against addition of Rs.2,49,568/- as upheld by the CIT(A).

More judgments on Section 147

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →