ACIT, FARIDABAD vs. M/S HAMLET REAL PROJECTS INDIA PVT. LTD., NEW DELHI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 5707/DEL/2010Status: DisposedITAT Delhi07 October 2015AY 2008-094 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 dismissed the revenue's appeal, relying on its own previous decision in a similar case involving the same group. The revenue's arguments could not distinguish the precedent.

What were the facts?

During a search operation, the Assessing Officer added a significant amount for bogus purchases, alleging the assessee failed to prove the genuineness of the suppliers. The assessee challenged this addition before the CIT(A).

What were the issues?

Whether the addition on account of bogus purchases is justified when the assessee failed to produce suppliers, and if a previous ITAT decision on similar grounds should be followed.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 143(2),Section 142(1)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH: ‘F’ NEW DELHI

Before: SHRI R. S. SYAL & SMT SUCHITRA KAMBLE

For Appellant: Smt. Nandita Kanchan CIT
Hearing: 01.10.2015

ORDER PER SUCHITRA KAMBLE, JM

This appeal is filed by the revenue against order dated 29/09/2010 passed by Ld. CIT(A) 1, Ludhiana. The grounds of appeal are as follows:-

1. The Ld. CIT(A) has erred both in law and on the facts of the case in deleting an addition of Rs.2,78,32,218/- made on account of bogus purchases [relying on the ratio of his own decisions in the case of Piyush Developers (P) Ltd in 1/Ldh/09-10, dated 29/09/2010], without appreciating that despite abundant opportunities given by the Assessing Officer, and being confronted on record, the assessee failed to produce the parties and to prove the genuineness, identity and creditworthiness of the parties from whom the alleged purchases were made, the onus for which had squarely shifted on the assessee after the relevant parties were not found to exist at the addresses furnished by the assessee to the Assessing Officer.”

2.

Brief facts of the case are there was search and seizure operation of Piyush Group of Companies on 16/1/2008 during the course of search at the corporate office of Piyush Group, books of accounts were found and seized as per Annexure A-1 to A-79 of the inventory of seized document. Notice under Section 143(2) and 142(1) alongwith questionnaire 24.09.2009 were issued and duly served upon the assessee. The Assessing Officer passed assessment order dated 29/12/2009 wherein the assessing officer has added Rs.2,96,99,480/- against return income of Rs.18,66,350/- in respect of bogus purchase made during the year. The assesses challenged the same before the CIT(A) and the said ground was dismissed by the CIT(A).

3.

The AR submitted an order dated 8th July 2015 passed by the ITAT Delhi Bench in in case of searched party i.e. Piyush Developers Pvt. Ltd., wherein the appeal of Piyush Developers has been allowed and pointed out that in fact the grounds contested by the Revenue in the present case are similar.

4.

The DR totally relied on Assessing Officer’s order but could not distinguish the order passed by this Tribunal in Piyush Developers case. [Piyush Developers Pvt. Ltd. Vs. ACIT (ITA No. 5599/Del/2010) and ACIT Vs. Piyush Developers Pvt. Ltd. (ITA No. 5706/Del/2010) dated 08.07.2015]

5.

We have heard both the parties and perused all the records and found that the issue contested before the ITAT in the present case are covered by Piyush Developers Pvt. Ltd.

6.

In result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed.

The order is pronounced in the open court on 7th of October, 2015.

More judgments on Section 142(1)

All 17,244 judgments and leading authorities on Section 142(1) →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →