MAYUR R. SHRIMANKER,MUMBAI vs. CIT(A)-39, MUMBAI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 3335/MUM/2015Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 October 2016AY 2010-113 pages
AI SummaryPartly Allowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal found that the assessee had properly accounted for purchases and sales, and disclosed a reasonable GP rate. Therefore, it reduced the addition to 5% of the purchases.

What were the facts?

The assessee appealed against the CIT(A)'s order confirming a disallowance of 12.5% on purchases made from alleged hawala dealers. The AO had initially made an addition of 25% on such purchases.

What were the issues?

Whether disallowance on purchases from alleged hawala dealers is justified and to what extent, when books of account are not rejected.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 143(3)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “SMC”, BENCH MUMBAI

Before: SHRI R.C.SHARMA

Hearing: 11/08/2016Pronounced: 21/10/2016

आयकर अपीऱीय अधिकरण, म ुंबई न्यायपीठ ‘एस.एम.सी’, म ुंबई । IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “SMC”, BENCH MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI R.C.SHARMA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आमकय अऩीर सं./ (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year :2010-2011) Shri Mayur R Shrimankar, Prop. Vs. ITO-21(1)(3), Mumbai Emar Steel, 28, Tejpal Road, Vile Parle(E), Mumbai-400057 स्थामी रेखा सं./ जीआइआय सं./ PAN/GIR No. : AAJPS 9806 M (अऩीराथी /Appellant) (प्रत्मथी / Respondent) .. ननधाारयती की ओर से /Assessee by : Shri Phalgoon Desai याजस्व की ओर से /Revenue by : Shri Pradeep Kumar Singh सुनवाई की तायीख / Date of Hearing : 11/08/2016 घोषणा की तायीख/Date of Pronouncement 21/10/2016 आदेश / O R D E R This is an appeal filed by the assessee against the order of CIT(A) for assessment year 2010-2011, in the matter of order passed u/s.143(3) of the I.T.Act.

2.

Common grievance of the assessee relates to CIT(A)’s action in confirming disallowance at 12.5% of the purchase amount effected from dealers whose names appear in the list of hawala dealers.

3.

Rival contentions have been heard and record perused. In the course of assessment the AO made addition in respect of purchases made from dealers, who are alleged by sales tax department as hawala dealers. The AO made addition of 25% of purchases shown from 13 parties, alleged by the sales tax department.

4.

By the impugned order, CIT(A) confirmed the addition at 12.5% of such purchases and deleted the balance. The assessee is in further 2 appeal before us against the sustaining addition of 12.5% of such purchases.

5.

I have considered rival contentions and found from the record that detailed finding has been recorded by CIT(A) with regard to the purchases and sales so made by the assessee. The books of accounts were not rejected and it was found that whatever the purchases had been made by the assessee had been properly accounted for and also sold during the year under consideration and assessee has also disclosed GP rate at 6.31%, which is prevailing rate of GP in the similar trade. Under these circumstances, I find it reasonable to uphold the addition of 5% as against addition of 12% as upheld by the CIT(A).

6.

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed in part. Order pronounced in the open court on this 21/10/2016.

Sd/- (R.C.SHARMA) ऱेखा सदस्य / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER भुंफई Mumbai; ददनांक Dated 21/10/2016 प्र.कु.मभ/pkm, नन.स/ PS आदेश की प्रनिलऱपप अग्रेपषि/Copy of the Order forwarded to : अऩीराथी / The Appellant 1. प्रत्मथी / The Respondent. 2. आमकय आमुक्त(अऩीर) / The CIT(A), Mumbai. 3. आमकय आमुक्त / CIT 4. ववबागीम प्रनतननधध, आमकय अऩीरीम अधधकयण, भुंफई / DR, ITAT, Mumbai 5. गार्ा पाईर / Guard file. 6. सत्मावऩत प्रनत //True Copy// आदेशाि सार/ BY ORDER,

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →