CIT v. Simit P. Sheth

ITO 27 (1)(4), Mumbai vs. Dinesh Ramji Bhanushali, Navi Mumbai

The appeal stands dismissed

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am

…1 A.Y. 2009-10 Dinesh Ramji Bhanushali आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण “एक-सद" मामला” "यायपीठ मुंबई म"। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “SMC” BENCH, MUMBAI माननीय "ी महावीर "संह, "या"यक सद"य एवं माननीय "ी मनोज कुमार अ"वाल ,लेखा सद"य के सम"। BEFORE HON’BLE SHRI MAHAVIR SINGH, JM AND HON’BLE SHRI MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL, AM आयकरअपील सं./ I.T.A. No.4972/Mum/2018 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year:2009-10) Income tax Officer-27(1)(4) Dinesh Ramji Bhanushali Tower 6, 4th Floor D-II-14, Mahindra Park बनाम/ Vs. Room No.409, Vashi Railway Station Complex, LBS Road, Ghatkopar (W) Vashi, Navi Mumbai. Mumbai-400 086. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआ…

ITO- 27 (1)(4), Mumbai vs. Dairy Udyog, Mumbai

The appeal stands dismissed

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am

…stated purchases were disallowed and added back to the income of the assessee. 2.3 The learned first appellate authority, after considering assessee’s submissions and relying upon the decision of Hon’ble Gujarat High Court rendered in CIT V/s Simit P. Sheth [356 ITR 451] restricted the addition to 12.5% of disputed purchases which came to Rs.8,748/- and deleted the balance additions. Aggrieved, the revenue is in further appeal before us. It appears that the assessee is not in further appeal. 3. We have considered the arguments advanced by Ld. DR. 4. We are of the considered opinion there could be no sale without…

Shri Dineshkumar C. Doshi, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer 19(1)(4), Mumbai

The appeal stands partly allowed

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am आयकरअपील सं./ I.T.A. No.1729/Mum/2018 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year:2010-11) & आयकरअपील सं./ I.T.A. No.1730/Mum/2018 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year:2011-12) Shri Dineshkumar C. Doshi Income Tax Officer-19(1)(4) Room No.222, 2Nd Floor, Prop. Jagruti Metal Industries बनाम/ Office No.305, 3Rd Floor Matru Mandir Vs. 13/12, Virchand Umershway B-3Rd Tardeo Road Panjrapole Lane, C.P. Tank, Mumbai 400 004. Mumbai-400 007. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Ahmpd-4114-D (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" / Respondent) : Revenue By : Shri Ashutosh Rajhans-Ld.Dr Assessee By : Shri Neelkanth Khandelwal-Ld. Ar सुनवाई की तारीख/ : 09/09/2019 Date Of Hearing घोषणा की तारीख / : 09/09/2019 Date Of Pronouncement

…he assessee was saddled with an estimated addition @12.5% amounting to Rs.8.25 Lacs in the quantum assessment order. The learned first appellate authority, inter-alia, relying upon the decision of Hon’ble Gujarat High Court rendered in CIT V/s Simit P. Sheth [356 ITR 451] restricted the addition to 6.5% and deleted the balance additions. Aggrieved, the assessee is in further appeal before us. It appears that the revenue is not in further appeal. We have heard and considered the arguments raised by respective representatives before us. 3. So far as the legal grounds are concerned, we find that the original return…

Sureshkumar N. Kadri, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 28(3)(3), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is hereby ordered to be allowed accordingly

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya, Am & Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.4804/Mum/2018 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2009-10) Sureshkumar N. Kadri बिधम/ Ito Ward-28(3)(3) Room No.319, 3Rd Floor, W-96C, Midc Industrial Vs. Area, Rabale Navi Mumbai- Tower No.6, Vashi Rly. 400701. Station Complex, Vashi, New Mumbai. स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. :Anbpk8662J (अपीलाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. Assessee By: Shri Bhadresh K. Doshi Revenue By: Shri Chaitanya Anjaria (Dr) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 28/08/2019 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 30/08/2019 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amarjit Singh, Jm: The Assessee Has Filed The Present Appeal Against The Order Dated 04.05.2018 Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) -26, Mumbai [Hereinafter Referred To As The “Cit(A)”] Relevant To The A.Y.2009- 10. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds: - “1. On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Ld. Cit(A) Erred In Upholding The Addition Of Rs.10,43,451/- Made By The Ao U/S 69C Of The Act By Treating The Purchase As Not Genuine. A.Y.2009-10 2. The Appellant Craves Leave To Add, Amend, Vary & / Or Withdraw Any Or All The Above Grounds Of Appeal.” 3. The Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Filed His Return Of Income On 29.09.2009 Declaring Total Income To The Tune Of Rs.7,78,736/- For The A.Y. 2009-10. The Return Was Processed U/S 143(1) Of The I.T. Act, 1961.The Case Of The Assessee Was Reopened On The Basis Of The Information Received From The Dgit (Inv.), Mumbai In Which It Was Conveyed That The Assessee Has Taken The Accommodation Entries Of Bogus Purchase In Sum Of Rs.10,43,561/- From The Following Four Parties.

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “SMC” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI SHAMIM YAHYA, AM AND SHRI AMARJIT SINGH, JM आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.4804/Mum/2018 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2009-10) Sureshkumar N. Kadri बिधम/ ITO Ward-28(3)(3) Room No.319, 3rd Floor, W-96C, MIDC Industrial Vs. Area, Rabale Navi Mumbai- Tower No.6, Vashi Rly. 400701. Station Complex, Vashi, New Mumbai. स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./PAN/GIR No. :ANBPK8662J (अपीलाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. Assessee by: Shri Bhadresh K. Doshi Revenue by: Shri Chaitanya Anjaria (DR) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date of Hearing: 28/08/2019 घोषणा की तारी…

M/S.Riddhi Siddhi Impex, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer-19(3)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is hereby ordered to be allowed accordingly

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “SMC” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI SHAMIM YAHYA, AM AND SHRI AMARJIT SINGH, JM आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.4780/Mum/2018 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2010-11) M/s. Riddhi Siddhi Impex बिधम/ ITO 19(3)(1) 79, CP Tank, Gulalwadi Mumbai. Vs. Circle, Mumbai-400004. स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./PAN/GIR No. : AAFFR0866E (अपीलाथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) Revenue by: Shri Chaitanya Anjaria (DR) Assessee by: None सुनवाई की तारीख / Date of Hearing: 27/08/2019 घोषणा की तारीख /Date of Pronouncement: 28/08/2019 आदेश / O R D E R PER AMARJIT SINGH, JM: The assessee has filed the…

Munna Biddu Rein, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer-26(2)(3), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Ble & Shri Rajesh Kumar, Hon'Blemunna Biddu Rein V. Income Tax Officer-26(2)(3) B-801, Udyan Complex Aayakar Bhavan Marol, Andheri (E) Mumbai – 400 021 Mumbai – 400 072 Pan: Adhpr3153P (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Ms Ketki Rajeshirke & Shri Rashmikant C. Modi Department By : Shri D.G. Pansari

…on certain purchases treated as unexplained expenditure. Assessing Officer did not doubt the sales made by the assessee from out of such purchases. Assessing Officer based on the decision of the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in the case of CIT v. Simit P. Seth [356 ITR 451] estimated the profit element in such purchases at 12.5% and by reducing the Gross Profit already declared by 4 Munna Biddu Rein the assessee. In the circumstances, we hold that there is no concealment of income or furnishing of inaccurate particulars as the profit element was determined by way of adhoc estimation. Coming to the interest, the ass…

ACIT- 18(1), Mumbai vs. Bhairav Metals, Mumbai

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Sri Rajesh Kumar, Am

…Aggrieved, assessee preferred the appeal 3 before CIT(A), who restricted the addition at 12.5% of the bogus purchase made by the AO by observing in para 3.3.6 by following the decision of Hon’ble Gujarat High court in the case of CIT vs. Smith P. Seth (2013) 356 ITR 451 (Guj) by observing as under: “3.3.6 Considering the totality of the facts before me, as well as the judicial opinion available, I am inclined to agree with the appellant’s stand that the addition is excessive. The Assessing Officer disallowed the amount of Rs. 73,48,813/- being 100% on account of bogus purchase of Rs. 73,48,813/-. I am of the vi…

Shri Riteshkumar K. Bafna, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer 20(3)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singhaayakr Apila Sam./ Ita No. 2321/Mum/2018 (Inaqa-Arna Baya- / Assessment Year 2009-10) Shri Riteshkumar K. Bafna Income Tax Officer Pratiksha Tower, Flat No. Ward 20(3)(1) Vs. 102, B-Wing R. S. Nimkar Piramal Chambers Parel, Marg Mumbai-400 008 Mumbai .. (P`%Yaqaai- / Respondent) (Apilaaqai- / Appellant) स्थायी लेखा सं./Pan No. Aabpb7160M

…750/- to the returned income of the assessee. Aggrieved, assessee preferred the appeal before CIT(A), who confirmed the action of the AO by observing in para 7 by following the decision of Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in the case of CIT vs. Smith P. Seth (2013) 356 ITR 451 (Guj) by observing as under: 3 “……….. The Ld. Counsel for the appellant also contends that an opportunity of cross examination has not been provided to him. But when the parties are treated as the witnesses of the assessee, how can the AO provide for cross examination of the same. Moreover, when the parties are not available at the given addres…

Income Tax Officer 19(3)(4), Mumbai vs. M/S.Super Tech Industries, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal stands dismissed

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri C.N. Prasad, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am

…wherein the assessee, inter-alia, pleaded for restricting the addition to some reasonable estimates. After considering the same, learned first appellate authority, inter-alia, relying upon the decision of Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in CIT V/s Simit P. Sheth [356 ITR 451] restricted the additions to 12.5% of alleged bogus purchases. While doing so, it was noted that corresponding sales could not be achieved without making the purchases and Ld. AO had not doubted the sales turnover. Further, the payment to suppliers was through banking channels and duly reflected in assessee’s bank account. It was also observed th…

Ritesh Kantilal Bafna, Mumbai vs. ITO WD 19(2)(2), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Rajesh Kumarassessment Year : 2009-10 Ritesh Kantilal Bafna Son & Legal Heir Of Late Vs. Kantilal M Bafna, 801, Shatrunjay Darshan, Ito, Wd-19(2)(2), Love Lane, Cross Lane, Mumbai Byculla, Mumbai [Pan : Aaapb8051G]

…see was indulging in such activities to suppress the true profits and to reduce the tax liability. The AO thought it reasonable to make addition on percentage basis by following the decision of Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Simit P. Sheth [356 ITR 451] (Guj). The AO estimated the Profit on the said purchases @ 12.50% thereby making an addition of Rs.1,43,02,913/- by making assessment u/s.143(3) r.w.s.147 of the Act, vide order dt.18-03-2015. 2.2. In the original assessment proceedings, AO has basically raised a query for furnishing the details of sale and purchases : 3 : above Rs.50,000/- vid…

Yogesh C. Lakkad, Mumbai vs. Pr. CIT- 32, Mumbai

In the result, assessee’s appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri N.K. Pradhan

…Thus, ultimately, the Assessing Officer concluded that the assessee has failed to prove the genuineness of purchases. However, relying upon certain judicial precedents including the decision of the Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in CIT v/s Simit P. Sheth, [2013] 356 ITR 451 (Guj.), the Assessing Officer estimated profit on the non–genuine purchases @ 4% and added back the amount to the income of the assessee. 4. As it appears, the assessee did not contest the addition made by the Assessing Officer. 5. When the matter stood thus, learned Principal Commissioner of Income Tax called for and examined the assessment re…

Diamond Creations, Mumbai vs. Assistant Commission of Income Tax, Central Circle - 1(2), Mumbai

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Ble & Shri M. Balaganesh, Hon'Ble

…on certain purchases treated as unexplained expenditure. Assessing Officer did not doubt the sales made by the assessee from out of such purchases. Assessing Officer based on the decision of the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in the case of CIT v. Simit P. Seth [356 ITR 451] estimated the profit element in such purchases at 12.5% and by reducing the Gross Profit already declared by the assessee. In the circumstances, we hold that there is no concealment of income or furnishing of inaccurate particulars as the profit element was determined by way of adhoc estimation. Coming to the interest, the assessee furnished com…

Diamond Creations, Mumbai vs. Assistant Commission of Income Tax, Central Circle - 1(2), Mumbai

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Ble & Shri M. Balaganesh, Hon'Ble

…on certain purchases treated as unexplained expenditure. Assessing Officer did not doubt the sales made by the assessee from out of such purchases. Assessing Officer based on the decision of the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in the case of CIT v. Simit P. Seth [356 ITR 451] estimated the profit element in such purchases at 12.5% and by reducing the Gross Profit already declared by the assessee. In the circumstances, we hold that there is no concealment of income or furnishing of inaccurate particulars as the profit element was determined by way of adhoc estimation. Coming to the interest, the assessee furnished com…

Diamond Creations, Mumbai vs. Assistant Commission of Income Tax, Central Circle - 1(2), Mumbai

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Ble & Shri M. Balaganesh, Hon'Ble

…on certain purchases treated as unexplained expenditure. Assessing Officer did not doubt the sales made by the assessee from out of such purchases. Assessing Officer based on the decision of the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in the case of CIT v. Simit P. Seth [356 ITR 451] estimated the profit element in such purchases at 12.5% and by reducing the Gross Profit already declared by the assessee. In the circumstances, we hold that there is no concealment of income or furnishing of inaccurate particulars as the profit element was determined by way of adhoc estimation. Coming to the interest, the assessee furnished com…

M/S.Blast Carboblocks Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer-15(1)(3), Mumbai

In the result appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahaha & Shri Pawan Singh

…% of the purchases on account of suppressed profit on ad-hock basis. The learned 7 ITA 1818 & 1819/Mum/2018 Commissioner (Appeals) confirmed the action of assessing officer by following the decision of Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in case of Smith P. Sheth (356 ITR 451). The learned AR further submits that once the AO accepted the consumption and sales of the assessee, no disallowances were warranted. In without prejudice and in alternative the ld AR for the assessee submits that the ad-hock disallowance of 20% of the alleged bogus purchases is excessive, however, to end the litigation the Tribunal may consi…

ITO 25(2)(1), Mumbai vs. Actube Enterprises, Mumbai

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपीऱ सं./I.T.A. No.3941/Mum/2017 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2010-11) बिाम/ Income Tax Officer-25(2)(1) Actube Enterprises Room No. 505, C-10, 5Th 27, Laxmi Flat Owner Floor, Pratyakshkar Chs Limited , V. Bhavan, Bkc, M.G. Road Extension, Bandra(East), Vile Parle(East), Mumbai-400051 Mumbai-400057 स्थायी ऱेखा सं./ Pan: Aabfa2570J (अपीऱाथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) Revenue By: Shri. Vivek Anand Ojha (Dr) Assessee By: Apurva R. Shah (Ar) सुनवाई की तारीख /Date Of Hearing : 01.07.2019 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 05.08.2019 आदेश / O R D E R Per Ramit Kochar: This Appeal, Filed By Revenue, Being Ita No. 3941/Mum/2017, Is Directed Against Appellate Order Dated 15.03.2017 In Appeal No. Cit(A)-37/It-722/Ito-25(2)(1)/15-16, Passed By Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-37, Mumbai (Hereinafter Called “The Cit(A)”), For Assessment Year(Ay) 2010-11, The Appellate Proceedings Had Arisen Before Learned Cit(A) From Assessment Order Dated 31.12.2015 Passed By Learned Assessing Officer (Hereinafter Called “The Ao”) U/S 143(3) R.W.S. 147 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Called “The Act”) For Ay:2010-11. I.T.A. No.3941/Mum/2017

…nquiry as to whether the payments made by the asessee had been actually received by the apparent sellers. Hence the estimate made by the appellate authorities did not warrant interference. 5.7 Recently in the case of Commissioner of Income tax v Simit P Sheth 356 ITR 451 (Guj) the Hon'ble Court has given a finding that estimation of rate of profit return must necessarily vary with the nature of business and no uniform yardstick could be adopted and finally confirmed the action of the ITAT in determining 12.5% of the bogus purchases as the profit embedded in such transaction. The head note is as under: Income from…

Income Tax Officer 21(1)(1), Mumbai vs. Shri Anil P Sawardekar, Mumbai

The appeal stands dismissed

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am

…1 Anil P. Sawardekar Assessment Year :2009-10 आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण “ए” "ायपीठ मुंबई म"। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A” BENCH, MUMBAI माननीय "ी महावीर िसंह, "ाियक सद" एवं माननीय "ी मनोज कुमार अ"वाल ,लेखा सद" के सम"। BEFORE HON’BLE SHRI MAHAVIR SINGH, JM AND HON’BLE SHRI MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL, AM आयकरअपील सं./ I.T.A. No.1842/Mum/2018 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year:2009-10) Income Tax Officer-21(1)(1) Shri Anil P. Sawardekar Room No.103, 1st Floor Room No.234, Kamgar Nagar बनाम/ No.2, Near Bombay Dyeing Mill, Piramal Chambers, Parel Vs. New Prabhadevi Road Mumbai-400 012. Mumbai-400 088. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआर…

ITO 25(3)(4), Mumbai vs. Svphn Steel Service, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue is hereby ordered to be dismissed

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya, Am & Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.515/Mum/2018 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2010-11) Ito-25(3)(4) बिधम/ M/S. Svpnh Steel Services Room No.605, C-10, 6Th C-201,Matoshree, Vs. Floor, Pratyakshakar Residency, Prarthana Samaj Bhavan, Bandra Kurla Road, Vile Parle (E), Complex, Bandra (E), Mumbai-400056. Mumbai-400051. स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aabfs2247J (अपीलाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. Revenue By: Shri Chaudhary Arun Kumar Singh (Sr. Ar) Assessee By: Shri Rajiv Khandelwal सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 22/07/2019 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 31/07/2019 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amarjit Singh, Jm: The Revenue Has Filed The Present Appeal Against The Order Dated 24.11.2017 Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) -37, Mumbai [Hereinafter Referred To As The “Cit(A)”] Relevant To The A.Y.2010- 11. 2. The Revenue Has Raised The Following Grounds: -

…the A U that he has accepted the corresponding sales and was only disputing profit element on such purchases. The CIT(A) has confirmed the action of the AO estimating profit at 12.5% by relying on the decision of Gujarat High Court in the case of Simit P Seth 256 ITR 451. It was argued by learned AR that in the case of Simit P Seth estimation of profit of 12.5% by the High Court was made on the plea that rate of VAT was 10% in Gujarat and additional 2.5% profit was estimated However, in the State of Maharashtra, where assessee carries on its business, the VAT is 4%, therefore, in place of 10%, 4% should be taken…

Sobhagmull Gokal Chand Jewellers, Mumbai vs. ACIT-19(3), Mumbai

In the result, appeals of the assessee for the A

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Ble

…% of the value and the same was disallowed/added. 5. On appeal the Ld.CIT(A) considering the submissions of the assessee and the CBDT Instruction No.2/08 dated 22.02.2008 and the decision of the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in the case of CIT v. Simit P. Seth [356 ITR 451] he restricted the profit element from such purchases at 3% as against 5% estimated by the Assessing Officer. 6. Before me, the Ld. Counsel for the assessee reiterated the submissions made before the lower authorities. He also submitted that the dealers have confirmed the sales made to the assessee. The Ld.Counsel for the assessee further submit…

Sobhagmull Gokal Chand Jewellers, Mumbai vs. ACIT-19(3), Mumbai

In the result, appeals of the assessee for the A

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Ble

…% of the value and the same was disallowed/added. 5. On appeal the Ld.CIT(A) considering the submissions of the assessee and the CBDT Instruction No.2/08 dated 22.02.2008 and the decision of the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in the case of CIT v. Simit P. Seth [356 ITR 451] he restricted the profit element from such purchases at 3% as against 5% estimated by the Assessing Officer. 6. Before me, the Ld. Counsel for the assessee reiterated the submissions made before the lower authorities. He also submitted that the dealers have confirmed the sales made to the assessee. The Ld.Counsel for the assessee further submit…