“bogus purchases”

ITO-33(2)(5), Mumbai vs. Paresh S. Sanghvi (HUF), Mumbai

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Ravish Soodincome-Tax Officer-33(2)(5) Paresh S. Sanghvi (Huf) Room No. 851, 8Th Floor, Kautilya B-307, Highway Park, E-3, Thakur Vs Bhavan, Bkc, Complex, Kandivali (East), Mumbai – 400 051. Mumbai-400 101. Pan – Aaihp2161F (Appellant) (Respondent)

facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in deleting the addition made in respect of bogus purchases especially when Ld. CIT(A) clearly found that the assessee did not substantiate the claim of genuine purchases. 2. On the facts ... circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in determining the profit percentage at the rate of the bogus purchases w hile the assessee had P a g e | 2 ITA No.4155/Mum/2019 – ITO s. Paresh S. Sanghvi A.Y 2009-10 failed to establish the genuineness itself

Rawassa Construction, Mumbai vs. DCIT Cen Cir -9, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Amarjit Singhassessment Year: 2010-11 M/S. Rawassa Dcit, Construction, 638 Central Circle-9, Gouri House, Tps Iii Vs. 8Th Floor, Old Cgo 8Th Road, Khar (West), Annexue Bldg., Mumbai – 400 052 M.K. Road, Pan: Aaafr 6170N Mumbai - 400020 (Appellant) (Respondent) Present For: Assessee By : Shri Bharat Kumar, A.R. Revenue By : Shri Manpreet Singh Duggal, D.R. Date Of Hearing : 09.12.2020 Date Of Pronouncement : 14.12.2020 O R D E R Per Rajesh Kumar: The Present Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 08.10.2015 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) [Hereinafter Referred To As The Cit(A)] Relevant To Assessment Year 2010-11. 2. The Assessee Has Raised Two Ground Of Appeal & The Appeal Was Adjudicated By The Co-Ordinate Bench Of The Tribunal Vide Order Dated 30.10.2018. Now ,The Assessee Has Moved Miscellaneous Application Vide Ma No.363/M/2019 Arising Out Of Ita No.26/M/2016 Challenging The Adjudication Of First Ground Of Appeal Which Was For Bogus Purchases On The Ground That Vat Assessment Order For The Period From 01.04.2009 To 31.03.2010 Relevant To A.Y. 20101-11 Filed By The 2 M/S. Rawassa Construction Assessee Has Not Been Considered Adjudicating This Ground & Therefore The Coordinate Bench Recalled The Impugned Order To The Limit Extent Of Examining The Relevance/Applicability Of Vat Assessment Order In Adjudication Of This Ground. Therefore, We Are Only Deciding The Ground No.1 In The Light Of The Vat Assessment Order For A.Y. 2010-11 Which Was Before Us Adjudication.

assessee has moved miscellaneous application vide MA No.363/M/2019 arising out of ITA No.26/M/2016 challenging the adjudication of first ground of appeal which was for bogus purchases on the ground that VAT assessment order for the period from 01.04.2009 to 31.03.2010 relevant to A.Y. 20101-11 filed ... assessment order for A.Y. 2010-11 which was before us adjudication. 3. The facts in brief are that the assessee was beneficiary of bogus purchase entries to the tune of Rs.89,33,527/- which came to the notice of AO when DDIT (Inv.) conducted a search on the assessee under

ITO 20(2)(5), Mumbai vs. Praveen Kumar Gupta, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Rajesh Kumarassessment Year: 2011-12 Income Tax Officer Shri Praveen Kumar 20(2)(5) Gupta, Room No.208, Prop. Haryana Steel 2Nd Floor, International, Vs. Piramal Chambers, Shop No.228, Lalbaug, Motiwal Mansion, Parel, Maulana Azad Road, Mumbai – 400012 Mumbai – 400 008 Pan: Aacpg3961A (Appellant) (Respondent) Present For: Assessee By : None Revenue By : Ms. Shreekala Pardeshi, D.R. Date Of Hearing : 02.11.2020 Date Of Pronouncement : 14.12.2020 O R D E R

only issue raised by the Revenue is against the order of Ld. CIT(A) restricting the addition to 4.60% of the alleged bogus purchases. 4. The facts in brief are that assessee filed return of income on 21.09.2011 declaring a total income of Rs.3,47,560/- which was processed under ... issuing notice u/s 148 of the Act dated 18.12.2016 after the AO received information from the DGIT (Inv.) Mumbai that assessee has availed bogus purchases entries to the tune of Rs.16,00,59,300/- from M/s. Mairu Enterprises. The assessee filed during the course of assessment proceedings the bills, vouchers

DCIT - 10 (3)(1), Mumbai vs. M/S Platinum Organics Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Rajesh Kumarassessment Year: 2009-10 Dcit 10(3)(1), M/S. Platinum Organics 2Nd Floor, Room No.212, Ltd., Aayakar Bhavan, A-2, Vidya Villa, M.K. Road, Vs. Old Nagardas Cross Churchgate, Road, Mumbai - 400020 Andheri (East), Mumbai - 20 Pan: Aaacj9195N (Appellant) (Respondent) Present For: Assessee By : None Revenue By : Ms. Shreekala Pardeshi, D.R. Date Of Hearing : 02.11.2020 Date Of Pronouncement : 14.12.2020 O R D E R

issue raised by the Revenue in various grounds of appeal is against the order of Ld. CIT(A) restricting the addition on account of bogus purchases to 25% of the bogus purchases as against the 100% addition made by the AO. At the outset, we observe that

ITO, 6(1)(4), Mumbai vs. M/S Bombay Offset Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, both appeals by the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthyआअसं. 2913/मुं/2019 ("न.व.2010-11) आअसं. 2914/मुं/2019 ("न.व.2011-12) Income Tax Officer -6(1)(4), Room No.508, 5Th Floor, Aaykar Bhavan, M.K.Road, : अपीलाथ"/ Appellant Mumbai 400 020. बनाम/ Vs.

absence of any documentary evidence to prove the genuineness of the purchases, the Assessing Officer made addition of the entire bogus purchases in the respective assessment years. Aggrieved by the assessment orders dated 12/02/2016 passed under section 143(3) r.w. 144 r.w. 147 of the Act, the assessee filed appeals ... respective assessment years. The CIT(A) vide separate orders for assessment year 2010-11 and 2011-12, restricted the disallowance on bogus purchases to 12.5%. Against the aforesaid findings of CIT(A), the Revenue is in appeal. 3. Shri Ajay Pratap Singh, representing the Department submitted that though

ITO-17(3)(5), Mumbai vs. Uday Trading Corporaton, Mumbai

In the result, appeal by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthyआअसं. 2906/मुं/2019 ("न.व.2011-12) Ito-17(3)(5), Room No.137, 1St Floor, Aaykar Bhavan, M.K.Road, : अपीलाथ"/ Appellant Mumbai 400 020. बनाम/ Vs.

Investigation), Mumbai, the assessment for assessment year 2011-12 in the case of assessee was reopened. As per information received, the assessee allegedly obtained bogus purchase bills amounting to Rs.4200/- from M/s. Mahavir Trading, one of the suspicious dealers engaged in providing accommodation entries. The Assessing Officer in reassessment proceedings ... made addition of the entire alleged bogus purchases. Aggrieved by the assessment order dated 30/11/2016, passed under section 143(3) r.w.s. 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ( in short ‘the Act’), the assessee filed appeal before the CIT(A). The CIT(A) after examining the facts, restricted the disallowance

DCIT-7(3)(1), Mumbai vs. M/S Parco Engineers (M) Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai

Appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Rajesh Kumarassessment Year: 2011-12 Dcit 7(3)(1), M/S. Parco Engineers (M) Room No.142G, Pvt. Ltd., First Floor, 308, 3Rd Floor, Reena Vs. Aayakar Bhavan, Complex, Nathani Road, M.K. Road, Vidyavihar (W), Mumbai - 400020 Mumbai - 400086 Pan: Aaccp3024G (Appellant) (Respondent) Present For: Assessee By : Shri Paresh D. Shah, A.R. Revenue By : Ms. Shreekala Pardeshi, D.R. Date Of Hearing : 03.11.2020 Date Of Pronouncement : 14.12.2020 O R D E R

Parco Engineers (M) Pvt. Ltd. vide order dated 02.12.2016 wherein an addition of Rs.2,64,682/- was made by the AO @ 2.61% of alleged bogus purchases of Rs.1,01,41,060/-. Pertinent to state that the case was reopened by the AO on the basis of information received from Sales ... Department, Government of Maharashtra that assessee has taken bogus purchase bills to the tune of Rs.1,01,41,060/- and hence this addition by the AO. 4. The assessee did not challenge the quantum addition because of the smallness of the amount involved. The AO, however, came to conclusion that

Shree Mumbadevi Textiles Mills, Mumbai vs. ITO Ward 25(1)(2), Mumbai

The appeal of the assessee is treated as allowed for statistical purposes as terms indicated hereinabove

Bench: Shri C. N. Prasad, Jm & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Am आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 2496/Mum/2019 (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2011-12)

return was processed u/s 143(1) of the Act. Subsequently, information was received from DGIT(Inv) that assessee is involved in bogus purchases. In view of the above, the case was reopened by issuing notice u/s 148 of the Act and the case was taken for scrutiny. Accordingly, notices ... called for. After considering the submission of the assessee as well as verifying the relevant documents, AO made the disallowances on account of bogus purchases. 4. Aggrieved by the order of the Ld. A.O., assessee filed an appeal manually, before the Ld. CIT(A). The Ld. CIT(A) observed that

ITO-5(2)(4), Mumbai vs. M/S. Pacific Ferromate Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri M.Balaganesh, Am & Shri Ravish Sood, Jm Income Tax Officer 5(2)(4) Vs. M/S. Pacific Ferromate Pvt. Ltd., 61, 1St Floor Mumbai R.No.566, Aayakar Bhavan 74, Patrawala Chawl 5Th Kumbharwada Lane M.K.Road, Mumbai – 400 020 Maruti Mandir Marg Mumbai – 400 004 Pan/Gir No. Aadcp6164G (Appellant) .. (Respondent)

justified in deleting the penalty levied u/s.271(1)(c) of the Act in respect of addition made on account of bogus purchase on an estimated basis. 3. None appeared on behalf of the assessee and the notice issued to the assessee had returned unserved. We have heard ... website of Sales Tax department of Government of Maharashtra. Accordingly, the ld. AO had proceeded to tax the profit percentage embedded in such bogus purchases and made an addition in the assessment. This assessment was accepted by the assessee. Later, the penalty was levied on the said estimated addition made

ACIT Circle 17(2), Mumbai vs. M/S Palette International, Mumbai

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Ravish Soodasstt. Commissioner Of Income M/S Palette International Tax, Circle 17(2), 508, Nainkrupa, Room No. 123A, 1St Floor, Vs. 118/122, Kazi Sayed Street, Aayakar Bhavan, Churchgate, Mumbai – 400 003 Mumbai – 400 020 Pan – Aajfp1784H (Appellant) (Respondent)

justified in restricting the addition made by the A.O. to 12.% of Rs.1,96,875/- against the addition made at 100% of the bogus purchases, ignoring that the assessee was unable to prove the genuineness of the purchases either by producing the supplier for examination or by furnishing other substantiating ... Rs.1,10,08,710/- . Subsequently, on the basis of information received in the office of DGIT (Inv.), Mumbai, that the assessee had booked bogus purchases by obtaining accommodation entry from a hawala party, its case was reopened under Sec. 147 of the Act. 3. During the course of the assessment

ACIT Circle, 17(2), Mumbai vs. M/S Paresh Chemical Corporation, Mumbai

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Ravish Soodasstt. Commissioner Of Income M/S Paresh Chemical Corporation Tax, Circle 17(2), 1/1 Steel Yard House, Room No. 123A, 1St Floor, Vs. 67-F Sant Tukaram Road, Aayakar Bhavan, Churchgate, Iron Market, Masjid Bunde, Mumbai – 400 020 Mumbai – 400 009 Pan – Aaafp7975R (Appellant) (Respondent)

justified in restricting the addition made by the A.O. to 5% of Rs.18,97,853/- against the addition made at 12.5% of the bogus purchases, ignoring that the assessee was unable to prove the genuineness of the purchases either by producing the supplier for examination or by furnishing other substantiating ... Subsequently, on the basis of information received from the office of the DGIT(Inv.), Mumbai, that the assessee had booked bogus purchases of Rs.18,97,853/- its case was reopened under Sec. 147 of the Act. 3. During the course of the assessment proceedings it was observed

Iti-22(1)(2), Mumbai vs. Devang Pravin Talsania, Mumbai

In the result this appeal filed by the revenue stands dismissed

revenue wherein the revenue is aggrieved that the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [in short learned CIT(A)] has reduced the addition for bogus purchase of Rs. 22,892/- done @ 14.06% by Assessing Officer by sustaining only 12.5% for the A.Y.2011-12 vide order dated 11.3.2019. 2. The assessee ... reopened upon information from sales tax department that assessee has made purchases from bogus dealers, the Assessing Officer made 14.06% addition of the bogus purchase resulting in disallowance of Rs. 22,892/-. 3. Upon assessee's appeal learned CIT(A) has noted that the sales have not been doubted. Accordingly

Shri Tejas Harakchand Shah, Mumbai vs. ITO-30(3)(4), Mumbai

In the result assessee's appeal is partly allowed

Bench: The Assessing Officer. Sales In This Case Were Not Doubted. The Income Tax Officer In This Case Has Made 12.5% Addition On Account Of Bogus Purchase Resulting In Disallowance Of Rs.3,40,212/-.

aggrieved that the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [in short learned CIT(A)] has erred in sustaining 10% disallowance on account of bogus purchases, vide order dated 28.11.2018 pertaining to assessment year 2010-11. 2. Brief facts of the case are that assessee in this case is engaged ... ferrous metal. The Assessment in this case was reopened upon receipt of information from the sales tax Department that assessee has made bogus purchases. The assessee submitted the purchase vouchers and the payments were made through banking channel. However the suppliers were not produced before the assessing officer. Sales

ACIT - 18 (1), Mumbai vs. Deepa P. Manshani, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue is hereby dismissed

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh, Am & Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. Nos.5639/M/2018 & 5640/M/2018 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Years: 2009-10 & 2010-11) Acit-18(1) बिधम/ Deepa P. Manshani Room No.202, 2Nd Floor, 76/78, Dwarakadas Bldg, Vs. Earnest House, Nariman Mangaldas Road, Lohar Point, Mumbai-400021. Chawl, Mumbai-400002. स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Altpm2676G (अपीलाथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) Revenue By: Shri O. P. Meena (Sr. Dr) Assessee By: None सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 05/10/2020 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 09/12/2020 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amarjit Singh, Jm: The Above Mentioned Appeals Have Been Filed By The Revenue Against The Different Order Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)- 29, Mumbai [Hereinafter Referred To As The “Cit(A)”] Relevant To The A.Ys.2009-10 & 2010-11. Ita. No.5639/M/2018:- 2. The Revenue Has Filed The Present Appeal Against The Order Dated 19.07.2018 Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-29, Mumbai [Hereinafter Referred To As The “Cit(A)”] Relevant To The A.Y.2009- 10. Ita. Nos.5639 & 5640/M/2018 A.Ys. 2009-10 & 2010-11

circumstances of the case, and in the law, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in restricting the addition @12.5% of the alleged bogus purchase of Rs.56,95,671/- u/s 69C of IT Act .1961 without considering the facts that the purchases were not made by the assessee from the suppliers ... selected for scrutiny. An information was received from the DGIT(Inv.), Mumbai in which it came into notice that the assessee has taken the bogus purchase entries in sum of Rs.56,95,671/- from the mentioned parties as under.:- Hawala Name Hawala PAN F.Y Amount Siddhivinayak Trading Company AUEPS9671B

ITO 29 (3)(5), Mumbai vs. Vikrant Vadilal Shah, Mumbai

Accordingly, grounds raised by the revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri S.Rifaur Rahmanita Nos.7020 & 7021/Mum/2018 (Assessment Years: 2010-11 & 2011-12) Ito-29(3)(5), Shri Vikrant Vadilal Shah 403, 4Th Floor, Neelkanth Nir, Room No. 211, C-10, 2Nd Floor, Prathashakar Bhavan, Tridev Tulip, Bpx Road, Vs. Bandra Kurla Complex, Mulund (W), Bandra (East), Mumbai 400080 Mumbai- 400051 Pan – Andps9819B (Appellant) (Respondent)

erred in restricting the addition of Rs.47,96,932/- being 100% to Rs.5,99,616/- being 12.5% of the aforesaid bogus purchases from hawala parties ignoring the fact that the assessee had failed to produce the parties.” ITO-29(3)(5) Vs.Shri Vikrant Vadilal Shah A.Ys ... introducing hawala purchases, accordingly, he made the addition. Since the revenue is in appeal against the restriction of addition of value of bogus purchases @ 12.5%, therefore, we are restricting ourselves to this facts. 3. Aggrieved with the above order assessee preferred an appeal before the CIT(A). After considering

Sandeep C. Shah, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 25(1)(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee for assessment year 2009-2010

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar (Am) & Shri Ram Lal Negi (Jm) Assessment Year: 2009-10 Sandeep C. Shah, The Commissioner Of Income 52, Rokadiya Niketan, Tax -37, Parsi Panchayat Road, Opp., Bkc C-13, 1St Floor, Sona Udyog, Andheri (East), Vs. Room No. 112, Mumbai - 400069 Mumbai - 400051 Pan: Amtps9859G (Appellant) (Respondent)

sides, we find merit in the arguments of the assessee for the reason that although the AO has estimated 25% gross profit on alleged bogus purchases, never made by observations with regard to the incorrectness in details filed by the assessee to prove such purchases. The AO never disbelieved information ... information received from sales-tax department to make additions. The AO has made such addition on adhoc basis by estimating gross profit on alleged bogus purchases. From these facts, it is very clear that the AO failed to make a case of deliberate attempt by the assessee to furnish inaccurate

DCIT Cir 1, Kalyan vs. M/S Evonik Catalyst India P.Ltd, Thane

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed as observed above

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Ble & Shri M. Balaganesh, Hon'Bledcit, Circle-1 V. M/S. Evonik Catalysts India Pvt. Ltd., F-1/2, Midc, Phase-1 1St Floor, Income Tax Office Dombivli (E) - 421203 Mohan Plaza, Nr. Podar School Wayle Nagar, Kalyan (W)-421301 Pan: Aaacm5013G (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Prasant Kirve Department By : Shri Vijay Kumar P. Menon

existent vendors by means of relevant supporting documents related to movement of goods, stock register, etc. to restrict the addition to 25% of bogus purchases from the non-existent vendors. 4. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred

ITO 22 (1)(3), Mumbai vs. Chirag J. Mehta, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon’Bleincome Tax Officer – 22(1)(3) V. Shri Chirag J. Mehta 314, 3Rd Floor 103A Nadia Apartment Piramal Chambers, Lalbaug 10Th Road, Tps Iii Mumbai – 400 012 Santacruz(E), Mumbai - 400055 Pan: Agkpm6888Q (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Pramita Rathi Department By : Shri Sanjay J. Sethi

Assessee had originally filed return of Income on 30.09.2010 and then during survey on 04.12.2012 (approx. 2 years later) admitted additional income and bogus purchases and accepted the same of addition in assessment order passed on 01.03.2013. 3. The CIT(A) should have seen that but for survey conducted ... department, the Assessee would have stuck to returned income only and thereby not withdrawing the bogus purchases claim." 4. The appellant prays that the order of the CIT(A) on the above ground be reversed and that of the Assessing Officer be restored. 5. The appellant craves leave to amend