← All Phrases

“bogus purchases”

DisallowancesSection 69CSection 69C9,532 judgments

The decision most relied on for bogus purchases is CIT v. Bholanath Poly Fab. Pvt. Ltd. (355 ITR 290), cited in 712 judgments on BharatTax.

Leading authorities on bogus purchases

CIT v. Bholanath Poly Fab. Pvt. Ltd.
355 ITR 290 · 2013 · High Court
712
citing judgments

If an assessee makes purchases from bogus parties, but the underlying goods are genuinely acquired and sold, only the profit margin embedded in such purchases, and not the entire value of the bogus purchases, should be added to the assessee's income.

Sanjay Oilcake Industries v. CIT
316 ITR 274 · 2009 · High Court
460
citing judgments

In cases of alleged bogus or unverifiable purchases, rather than disallowing the entire purchase value, a reasonable profit element or a proportionate percentage of the purchases should be added back to the assessee's income.

Vijay Proteins Ltd. v. Asst. CIT
58 ITD 428 · 1996 · ITAT
430
citing judgments

Where purchases are found to be non-genuine or fictitious, a reasonable disallowance of 25% of such purchases or the peak credit, whichever is higher, can be made. This is applied to address unexplained expenditure under Section 69C when actual goods are likely procured from the grey market.

CIT v. Odeon Builders Pvt. ltd.
418 ITR 315 · 2019 · Supreme Court
408
citing judgments

Income tax additions cannot be sustained merely on the basis of uncorroborated statements or allegations. The Revenue must bring on record sufficient material and allow the assessee to produce evidence to prove such additions.

Nikunj Eximp Enterprises v. CIT
216 Taxmann 171 · 2013 · High Court
325
citing judgments

Purchases may be treated as genuine even if the purchase parties are untraceable or not available for verification, as long as there is no specific evidence from the parties themselves denying the transactions or proving them to be bogus.

CIT v. Shyam R. Pawar
54 Taxmann.com 108 · 2015 · High Court
279
citing judgments

Transactions involving the purchase and sale of shares cannot be considered bogus where the assessee provides documentary evidence, unless the revenue brings substantial evidence on record to reject such proof. This principle is consistently applied in cases concerning claims of bogus long-term capital gains arising from penny stock transactions.

CIT v. Simit P. Seth
38 Taxmann.com 385 · 2013 · High Court
278
citing judgments

When an assessee obtains accommodation bills for purchases but the corresponding sales are genuine, the addition to income is limited to the gross profit margin embedded in such purchases. This principle acknowledges that the underlying sales were real, but profit was suppressed through bogus invoices.

CIT v. Vijay M. Mistry Construction Ltd.
355 ITR 498 · 2013 · High Court
252
citing judgments

In cases of alleged bogus or hawala purchases where the existence of transactions is not entirely denied, only the profit element embedded in such purchases, and not the entire purchase price, can be added to the assessee's income. The focus is on determining a reasonable profit percentage for such additions.

Judgments citing bogus purchases

ITO 28(1)(4), Mumbai vs. Shri. Joseph Santa Lopez, Panvel

In the result, the appeal stands dismissed

ITA 6449/MUM/2019[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Jul 2021AY 2009-10

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Mahavir Singh, Vp & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am (Hearing Through Video Conferencing Mode) 1. आयकरअपील िं./ I.T.A. No.6449/Mum/2019 (धििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2009-10) Ito 28(1)(4), Shri Joseph Santa Lopez R. No. 330, 3Rd Floor Tara Chs Ltd, Plot No.16, बिाम/ Tower No. 6 Sector-16, Roadpali Kalamboli, Vs. Vashi Railway Station Complex Tal: Panvel, Dist-Raigad, Navi Mumbai-400 703 Maharashtra-410 206. स्थायीलेखा िं./ जीआइआर िं./ Pan/Gir No. Aaapl-5131-B (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) : Assessee By : None Revenue By : Ms. Usha Gaikwad, Ld. Sr. Dr ुनवाई की तारीख/ : 29/07/2021 Date Of Hearing घोषणा की तारीख / : 29/07/2021 Date Of Pronouncement आदेश / O R D E R Manoj Kumar Aggarwal ()

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Ms. Usha Gaikwad, Ld. Sr. DR
Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 148

Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-26 Mumbai [CIT(A)] dated 09/08/2019 which has granted partial relief to the assessee on account of alleged bogus purchases. 2. At the time of hearing, none appeared for assessee. However, the material on record was sufficient for disposal of the appeal ... Gujarat High Court in CIT V/s Simit P. Sheth (356 ITR 451). Finally the estimation was made at 12.5% of alleged bogus purchases of Rs.54.65 Lacs. Aggrieved, the revenue is in further appeal before us. 6. After going impugned order, we find that Ld. CIT(A) has clinched the issue

The ITO, Ward-2(3), Surat vs. Shri Gulambhai Alibhai Patel, Surat

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is partly allowed

ITA 2856/AHD/2014[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Surat28 Jul 2021AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.2856/Ahd/2014 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: (2011-12) (Virtual Court Hearing) The Income Tax Officer, Shri Gulambhai Alibhai Patel, Vs Ward-2(3), Surat. Prop Of M/S.Gulambhai Alibhai Patel, 16-17, New Sardar Market, Dumbhal Patia, Surat – 394 210. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aezpp 9802 N (Assessee) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Rushi Parekh - Ca Respondent By : Ms.Anupama Singla – Sr.Dr सुनवाईक"तार"ख/ Date Of Hearing : 02/07/2021 घोषणाक"तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 28/07/2021 आदेश / O R D E R Per Dr. A. L. Saini:

For Appellant: Shri Rushi Parekh - CAFor Respondent: Ms.Anupama Singla – Sr.DR
Section 133ASection 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 40A(3)

circumstances of the case, whether the Ld. CIT(A) was justified in telescoping the addition of Rs.2,30,59,243/- on account of bogus purchases, addition of Rs.15,00,000/- on account of additional income disclosed during the course of survey action u/s 133A of the Act with the addition ... under reference or the parties concerned for verification of the genuineness of the transactions. Therefore, assessing officer treated Rs. 2,30,59,243/-, as bogus purchases and added to the returned income of the assessee. The assessing officer also made addition on account of disclosed income admitted during survey

ITO 33 (2)(2), Mumbai vs. Kirit Rashiklal Doshi, Mumbai

In the result, appeal by the Revenue is dismissed sans merit

ITA 8058/MUM/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Jul 2021AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwalआअसं. 8058/मुं/2019 ("न.व 2011-12) Ito-33(2)(2), Room No.846, 8Th Floor, Kautilya Bhavan, Bkc Mumbai 400 067 ...... अपीलाथ" /Appellant बनाम Vs. Kirit Rashiklal Doshi, Room No.8, 1St Floor, Poddar Bhuvan, Parekh Lane, Kandivali (W), Mumbai – 400 067. Pan: Aaapd-7604-H ..... ""तवाद"/Respondent अपीलाथ" "वारा/ Appellant By : Shri Sanjay J. Sethi ""तवाद" "वारा/Respondent By : None सुनवाई क" "त"थ/ Date Of Hearing : 10/06/2021 घोषणा क" "त"थ/ Date Of Pronouncement : 28/07/2021 आदेश/ Order

For Appellant: Shri Sanjay J. SethiFor Respondent: None

reopened on the basis of information received from DGIT (Inv), Mumbai. As per the 2 information received, the assessee had indulged in obtaining bogus purchase bills from nine dealers declared as hawala operators by the Sales Tax Department, Government of Maharashtra. During assessment proceedings, the Assessing Officer concluded that ... trail of goods. Since, the assessee failed to discharge his onus in proving genuineness of purchases and the dealers, the Assessing Officer disallowed entire bogus purchases. In the First Appellate proceedings, the CIT(A) granted relief to the assessee by estimating profit margin on bogus purchases to 5%. Thus

ITO 33 (2)(2), Mumbai vs. Kalpesh Dhirajlal Patel, Mumbai

In the result, appeal by the Revenue is dismissed, sans merit

ITA 8057/MUM/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Jul 2021AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwalआअसं. 8057/मुं/2019 ("न.व 2011-12) Ito-33(2)(2), Room No.846, 8Th Floor, Kautilya Bhavan, Bkc, Mumbai 400 051, ...... अपीलाथ" /Appellant बनाम Vs. Kalpesh Dhirajlal Patel, 4C/401, Paras Nagar, Shanker Lane, Khandivali (W), Mumbai – 400 067. Pan: Aknpp-9059-M ..... ""तवाद"/Respondent अपीलाथ" "वारा/ Appellant By : Shri Sanjay J. Sethi ""तवाद" "वारा/Respondent By : Shri Vishwas Mehendale सुनवाई क" "त"थ/ Date Of Hearing : 10/06/2021 घोषणा क" "त"थ/ Date Of Pronouncement : 28/07/2021 आदेश/ Order

For Appellant: Shri Sanjay J. SethiFor Respondent: Shri Vishwas Mehendale

case of assessee was reopened on the basis of information received from DGIT (Inv), Mumbai. As per the information received, the assessee had obtained bogus purchase bills aggregating to 2 Rs.15,96,010/- from six dealers, declared as hawala operators by the Sales Tax Department, Government of Maharashtra. During assessment ... goods. Since, the assessee failed to discharge his onus in proving genuineness of purchases and the dealers, the Assessing Officer disallowed 25% of bogus purchases and made addition of Rs.3,99,,002/-. In First Appellate proceedings, the CIT(A) restricted the disallowance to 12.5% of bogus purchases. Now, the Revenue

ITO 29(1)(1), Mumbai vs. M/S Ashapura Mould Plast, Mumbai

In the result, the ground No

ITA 4075/MUM/2019[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Jul 2021AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya, Am & Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.4075/Mum/2019 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2009-10) Ito-29(1)(1) बिधम/ M/S. Ashapura Mould Plast Room No.403, 4Th Floor, Gala No.100, 2Nd Floor, New Vs. Kautilya Bhavan, Near, Unique, Industrial Estate, Dr. Videsh Bhavan, Bandra R. P. Road, Mulund (W), Kurla Complex, Bandra (E), Mumbai-400080. Mumbai-400051. स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aadfa1268M (अपीलाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. Revenue By: Shri Brajendra Kumar (Dr) Assessee By: None सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 01/06/2021 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 27/07/2021 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amarjit Singh, Jm: The Revenue Has Filed The Present Appeal Against The Order Dated 05.03.2019 Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) -39, Mumbai [Hereinafter Referred To As The “Cit(A)”] Relevant To The A.Y.2009- 10. 2. The Revenue Has Raised The Following Grounds: - "(1) On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Ld. Cit(A) Erred In Deleting The Penalty U/S 271(1)(1)(C) Of Rs.81,690/- As The Addition Was On Account A.Y.2009-10 Of Bogus Purchase Of Rs.2,64,355/- @ 12.5% On Bogus Purchased Of Rs.21,14,840/- From Hawala Parties.

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Brajendra Kumar (DR)
Section 143(3)Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)

erred in deleting the penalty u/s 271(1)(1)(c) of Rs.81,690/- as the addition was on account A.Y.2009-10 of bogus purchase of Rs.2,64,355/- @ 12.5% on bogus purchased of Rs.21,14,840/- from hawala parties. 2. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case ... erred in deleting the penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of Rs.81,690/- as the addition of Rs.2,64,355/- on account of bogus purchase @ 12.5% on bogus purchased of Rs.21,14,840/- from hawala parties. In view of the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case

Vaghasiya Exports, Mumbai vs. Pr. CIT- 32, Mumbai

The appeal stands allowed in terms of our above order

ITA 2288/MUM/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Jul 2021AY 2014-15

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Saktijit Dey, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am (Hearing Through Video Conferencing Mode) आयकर अपील सं./ I.T.A. No.2288/Mum/2019 (धििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2014-15) M/S. Vaghasiya Exports Pr. Cit-32 Ae-2080, 2Nd Floor C-11, 2Nd Floor, Pratyakshakar Bhavan बिाम Bharat Diamond Bourse Bandra Kurla Complex, Bandra (East) / Vs. Bandra Kurla Complex, Bandra (East) Mumbai- 400 051. Mumbai 400 051 Pan: Aaafa-2061-Q (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) : Assessee By : Dr. K.Shivram- Ld. Sr. Counsel Revenue By : Shri H.N.Singh – Ld. Cit-Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/ : 20/05/2021 Date Of Hearing घोषणा की तारीख / : 27/07/2021 Date Of Pronouncement आदेश / O R D E R Manoj Kumar Aggarwal () 1. By Way Of This Appeal, The Assessee Challenges The Invocation Of Revisional Jurisdiction U/S 263 By Ld. Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax-32, Mumbai (Pr. Cit) For Assessment Year (Ay) 2014-15 Vide Order Dated 18/03/2019. The Grounds Raised By The Assessee Read As Under:- 1. The Ld. Pr.Cit Erred In Passing Revision U/S.263 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (The “Act”) Revising Assessment Order Passed U/S.143(3) On The Issue Of Addition Of Alleged Bogus Purchases Without Appreciating That Assessment Order U/S. 143(3) Is Neither Erroneous Nor Prejudicial To The Interest Of Revenue As During Assessment Proceedings Ld. Ao Had Specifically Raised Queries Pertaining To Alleged Bogus Purchases & After Considering The Evidences Produced By The Appellant, Made

For Appellant: Dr. K.Shivram- Ld. Sr. CounselFor Respondent: Shri H.N.Singh – Ld. CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 263

passing revision u/s.263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the “Act”) revising assessment order passed u/s.143(3) on the issue of addition of alleged bogus purchases without appreciating that assessment order u/s. 143(3) is neither erroneous nor prejudicial to the interest of revenue as during assessment proceedings ... specifically raised queries pertaining to alleged bogus purchases and after considering the evidences produced by the appellant, made 2 M/s Vaghasiya Exports Assessment Year: 2014-15 addition of 1.6% of alleged bogus purchases in accordance with law and thus revision under section. 263 is nothing but a change of opinion

DCIT 8(2)(1), Mumbai vs. Shobha Ansar Jewllery Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai

Appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 2053/MUM/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Jul 2021AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Vp & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Am आमकय अऩीर िं./ Ita No. 2053/Mum/2019 (ननधाायण वर्ा / Assessment Year 2013-14) आमकय अऩीर िं./ Ita No. 2054/Mum/2019 (ननधाायण वर्ा / Assessment Year 2011-12) आमकय अऩीर िं./ Ita No. 2055/Mum/2019 (ननधाायण वर्ा / Assessment Year 2014-15) The Dy. Commissioner Of Income M/S Shobha Asar Jewellery Tax-8(2)(1), Aayarka Bhawan, Pvt. Ltd. Room No. 624, M.K. Rd., फनाभ/ 78-B, Sunshine Building, Mumbai-400 020 Dr. Annie Besant Road, Vs. Worli, Mumbai-400 018 (अऩीराथी / Appellant) (प्रत्मथी/ Respondent) स्थामी रेखा िं./Pan No. Allcs9865R अऩीराथी की ओय े/ Appellant By : Shri Bharat Andhle, Ar प्रत्मथी की ओय े/ Respondent By : None ुनवाई की तायीख / Date Of Hearing: 27.07.2021 घोर्णा की तायीख / Date Of Pronouncement: 27.07.2021 आदेश / O R D E R भहावीय स िंह, उऩाध्मक्ष के द्वाया / Per Mahavir Singh, Vp: These Appeals Of The Revenue Are Arising Out Of Order Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)]-14, Mumbai [In Short Cit(A)], In Appeal No. Cit(A)-14/It-104C/16-17, Cit(A)-14/It-

For Appellant: Shri Bharat Andhle, ARFor Respondent: None
Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)

issue in these three appeals of the Revenue, 2. for three assessment years, against the different order of CIT(A) restricting the disallowance of bogus purchases at 6% as against disallowance made by Assessing Officer by estimating the profit rate at 12.5% of the bogus purchase. For this, Revenue ... restricting the addition made by the Assessing Officer to 6% of Rs.1,99,81,707/- against the addition made at 12.5% of the bogus purchases, ignoring that the assessee was unable to prove the genuineness of the purchase either by producing the supplier for examination or by furnishing other substantiating

Mr. Rajen Rasiklal Vora, Mumbai vs. ITO 26 (2)(5), Mumbai

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 6724/MUM/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Jul 2021AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Vp & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Am आमकय अऩीर िं./ Ita No. 6724/Mum/2019 (ननधाायण वर्ा / Assessment Year 2010-11) Mr. Rajen Rasiklal Vora The Income Tax Officer S-1, Second Floor, The Sion Ward 26(2)(5), Mumbai- फनाभ/ Ushakunj Chs, Sion (East), 400 051 Mumbai-400 022 Vs. (अऩीराथी / Appellant) (प्रत्मथी/ Respondent) स्थामी रेखा िं./Pan No. Aaapv7822R अऩीराथी की ओय े/ Appellant By : None प्रत्मथी की ओय े/ Respondent By : Shri Bharat Andhle, Dr ुनवाई की तायीख / Date Of Hearing: 26.07.2021 घोर्णा की तायीख / Date Of Pronouncement: 26.07.2021 आदेश / O R D E R भहावीय स िंह, उऩाध्मक्ष के द्वाया / Per Mahavir Singh, Vp: This Appeal Of The Assessee Is Arising Out Of Order Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)]-38, Mumbai [In Short Cit(A)], In Appeal No. Cit(A)-48/Ito-26(2)(5)/It-465/2016-17 Vide Dated 29.09.2019. The Assessment Was Framed By The Income Tax Officer, Ward 26(2)(5), Mumbai (In Short Ito/ Ao) For The A.Y. 2009- 10 Vide Order Dated 04.01.2016 Under Section 143(3) Of The Income- Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter ‘The Act’). 2. The Only Issue In This Appeal Of Assessee Is Against The Order Of Cit(A) Confirming The Levy Of Penalty Under Section 271(1)(C) Of The Mr. Rajen Rasiklal Vora; Ay 10-11 Act On Estimation Of Gross Profit At The Rate Of 12.5% Of The Bogus Purchases. For This, Assessee Has Raised Following Two Grounds :-

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Bharat Andhle, DR
Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)Section 69

Rajen Rasiklal Vora; AY 10-11 Act on estimation of Gross Profit at the rate of 12.5% of the bogus purchases. For this, assessee has raised following two grounds :- “1. In the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Assessing Officer erred in levying penalty

Nilesh Metel Company, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer W-19(3)(1) Mumbai, Mumbai

In the result, appeal by the assessee for assessment year 2011-11 and 2011-12 are partly allowed

ITA 5987/MUM/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Jul 2021AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthyआअसं. 5987/मुं/2019 ("न.व 2010-11) आअसं. 5988/मुं/2019 ("न.व 2011-12) M/S. Nilesh Metal Company, (Rajkumar Doongarmallji Chandak) 42/46 Office No.13, Guru Rajendra House, 5Th Kumbharwada, 2Nd Pathan Street, Mumbai 400 004 Pan: Aaipc-2403-R ...... अपीलाथ" /Appellant बनाम Vs. Ito-19(3)(1), 2Nd Floor, Matru Mandir, Tardeo Road, Mumbai 400 007 ..... ""तवाद"/Respondent अपीलाथ" "वारा/ Appellant By : None ""तवाद" "वारा/Respondent By : Shri Sanjay J. Sethi सुनवाई क" "त"थ/ Date Of Hearing : 22/06/2021 घोषणा क" "त"थ/ Date Of Pronouncement : 26/07/2021 आदेश/ Order

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay J. Sethi
Section 133(6)

year 2010-11 and 2011-12 were reopened on the basis of information received from DGIT(Inv), Mumbai regarding assessee’s involvement in obtaining bogus purchase bills from dealers declared as hawala operators by the Sales Tax Department, Government of Maharashtra. In assessment year 2010-11 the assessee obtained bogus ... purchase bills aggregating to Rs.1,72,12,521/- from ten such suspicious dealers ( in assessment year 2011-12 the assessee obtained bogus purchase bills aggregating to Rs.1,79,39,898/- from hawala operators). During assessment proceedings the Assessing Officer issued notice under section 133(6) of Income

ITO, Ward 3(4), Kalyan vs. Smt Sunita C Khandelwal, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 3505/MUM/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Jul 2021AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Vp & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Am आमकय अऩीर िं./ Ita No. 3505/Mum/2019 (ननधाायण वर्ा / Assessment Year 2010-11) The Income Tax Officer Smt. Sunita C. Khandelwal Ward-3(4), Kalyan Prop. Amita Steel 2N D Floor, Rani Mansion, Murbad Corporation, फनाभ/ Road, Kalyan-421301 E-1/5, Near Avery Bridge, Kalyan Shill Road, Midc, Vs. Dombivali (E)-421203 (अऩीराथी / Appellant) (प्रत्मथी/ Respondent) स्थामी रेखा िं./Pan No. Afgpk6867E अऩीराथी की ओय े/ Appellant By : Shri Bharat Andhale, Cit Dr प्रत्मथी की ओय े/ Respondent By : Shri Rajendra Deshpande, Ar ुनवाई की तायीख / Date Of Hearing: 26.07.2021 घोर्णा की तायीख / Date Of Pronouncement: 26.07.2021 आदेश / O R D E R भहावीय स िंह, उऩाध्मक्ष के द्वाया / Per Mahavir Singh, Vp: This Appeal Of The Revenue Is Arising Out Of Order Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)]-1, Mumbai [In Short Cit(A)], In Appeal No. 10352/2017-18 Vide Dated 19.03.2019. The Assessment Was Framed By The Income Tax Officer, Ward 3(4), Mumbai (In Short Ito/ Ao) For The A.Y. 2010-11 Vide Order Dated 15.12.2017 Under Section 143(3) Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter ‘The Act’). Smt. Sunita C. Khandelwal; Ay 10-11 2. The Only Issue In This Appeal Of Revenue Is As Regards To The Order Of Cit(A) Restricting The Disallowance Of Bogus Purchase/ Unproved Purchases At 12.5% By Estimating The Gross Profit Under Section 69C Of The Act Instead Of 100% Disallowance Made By Assessing Officer.

For Appellant: Shri Bharat Andhale, CIT DRFor Respondent: Shri Rajendra Deshpande, AR
Section 143(3)Section 69C

only issue in this appeal of Revenue is as regards to the order of CIT(A) restricting the disallowance of bogus purchase/ unproved purchases at 12.5% by estimating the Gross Profit under section 69C of the Act instead of 100% disallowance made by Assessing Officer. 3. We have heard ... Magnum Steels v/s ACIT, for AY 2010-11, vide ITA No. 1196/Mum/2015, dated 28.02.2017, confirmed the disallowance to the extent of 12.5% of bogus purchases. The AR requested that the business of the appellant being same to that of Magnum Steels i.e. trading in iron & steel, the disallowance be restricted

Myra the Diamond Studio, Mumbai vs. ITO WD 33(2)(3), Mumbai

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 5939/MUM/2018[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Jul 2021AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Vp & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Am आमकय अऩीर िं./ Ita No. 5939/Mum/2018 (ननधाायण वर्ा / Assessment Year 2007-08) M/S Myra- The Diamond Studio, The Commissioner Of Flat No.3, Monalisa, Road No.1, Income Tax (Appeals)-45, फनाभ/ House,1 St Bandra (W), Mumbai-400 050 103, Earnest Floor, Nariman Point, Vs. Mumbai-400067 (अऩीराथी / Appellant) (प्रत्मथी/ Respondent) स्थामी रेखा िं./Pan No. Aabfm0951F अऩीराथी की ओय े/ Appellant By : Shri M. Subramanian, Ar प्रत्मथी की ओय े/ Respondent By : Shri Bharat Andhale, Dr ुनवाई की तायीख / Date Of Hearing: 26.07.2021 घोर्णा की तायीख / Date Of Pronouncement: 26.07.2021 आदेश / O R D E R भहावीय स िंह, उऩाध्मक्ष के द्वाया / Per Mahavir Singh, Vp: This Appeal Of The Assessee Is Arising Out Of Order Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)]-45, Mumbai [In Short Cit(A)], In Appeal No. Cit(A)-45/Ito-33(2)(3)/Ita-23/2015-16 Vide Dated 23.07.2018. The Assessment Was Framed By The Income Tax Officer, Ward 33(2)(3), Mumbai (In Short Ito/ Ao) For The A.Y. 2006- 07 Vide Order Even Date 30.03.2015 Under Section 143(3) Read With Section 147 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter ‘The Act’). Myra The Diamond Studio; Ay 07-08 2. The Only Issue In This Appeal Of Assessee Is Against The Order Of Cit(A) Confirming The Action Of The Assessing Officer In Reopening Of Assessment Proceedings Under Section 147 Read With Section 148 Of The Act Despite The Fact That There Is No Failure On The Part Of The Assessee To Disclose All The Materials Facts Relating To Assessment & That Also Beyond Four Years. For This, Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds: -

For Appellant: Shri M. Subramanian, ARFor Respondent: Shri Bharat Andhale, DR
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 151(2)

justified. It came to light only after the search in the case of Bhanwarlal Jam group by the department that such information of bogus purchases/ bogus loans came to light. This information was 'fresh information', which was not present earlier. Therefore, the AO was justified in reopening the assessment based ... fact noted by the CIT(A) that there is no unsecured loans taken by the assessee but the CIT(A) treated these amounts as bogus purchases. He recorded this fact in para 5.2 as under: “5.2 I have gone through the assessment order and the submissions of the assessee. After