“bogus purchases”

DisallowancesSection 69CSection 69C9,532 judgments

The decision most relied on for bogus purchases is CIT v. Simit P. Sheth (356 ITR 451), cited in 1,465 judgments on BharatTax.

Leading authorities on bogus purchases

CIT v. Simit P. Sheth

356 ITR 451 · 2013 · High Court

1,465

citing judgments

Additions for alleged bogus purchases should be restricted to the profit element, not the entire turnover. The profit element is often estimated at 12.5% of the purported 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.

CIT v. Nikunj Exim Enterprises Pvt. Ltd.

372 ITR 619 · 2015 · High Court

391

citing judgments

Transactions defying human probability cannot be applied to isolated purchases if sales are accepted as genuine, and purchases cannot be disallowed without considering the entire transaction and documentary evidence. Failure to produce parties in an assessment proceeding may not be fatal to the assessee.

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.

Judgments citing bogus purchases

ACIT-27(3), Mumbai vs. Rashmikant V. Shah, Mumbai

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

ITA 7409/MUM/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Jan 2020AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya, Am & Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.7409/Mum/2018 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2009-10) Acit-27(3) बिधम/ Rashmikant V. Shah Room No.423, 4Th Floor, 310/12, Samuel Street, Vs. Room No.15, 2Nd Floor, Tower No.6, Vashi Railway Station Complex, Vashi, Masjid (W), Mumbai- Mumbai-400703. 400003. स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aanps8580L (अपीलाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. Revenue By: Shri Akhtar Ali Ansari (Dr) Assessee By: Shri Sanjay R. Parikh (Ar) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 06/01/2020 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 20/01/2020 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amarjit Singh, Jm: The Revenue Has Filed The Present Appeal Against The Order Dated 08.10.2018 Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) -25, Mumbai [Hereinafter Referred To As The “Cit(A)”] Relevant To The A.Y.2009- 10. 2. The Revenue Has Raised The Following Grounds: -

For Appellant: Shri Sanjay R. Parikh (AR)For Respondent: Shri Akhtar Ali Ansari (DR)

Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 148

case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in deleting the addition of Rs.62, 792/- made by the Assessing Officer on account of bogus purchases, without appreciating the fact that the assessee had failed to produce A.Y.2009-10 bills, vouchers and other documentary evidences in support of his claim ... erred in estimating the profit from Hawala purchases by disallowing only Rs.24,672/- being 12.5% of the bogus purchases as even the basic onus of producing delivery challans, transport bills etc. were not fulfilled by the assessee. (iii) The appellant prays that the order

ITO, Ward 2(4), Kalyan vs. Shanta Anil Garad, Ambernath

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

ITA 7017/MUM/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Jan 2020AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh (Jm) & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman (A.M.)

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

raised certain common grounds of appeal. Facts for both the assessment years are same except for variation in figure of addition on account of bogus purchases. Therefore, all four appeals were clubbed, heard and 2 ITAs 7017, 7018 & 7212, 7213/Mum/2018 are decided by this consolidated order. For appreciation of facts ... received from Investigation Wing of the department and sales-tax department, rejected the books of account of the assessee and disallowed 100% of such bogus purchases, in his assessment order dated 12-06-2014. On appeal before CIT(A), the Ld.CIT(A) restricted the addition to the extent

ITO 17 (2)(4), Mumbai vs. Nitin Nandkishor Bangad, Mumbai

In the result, both i.e. appeal of the revenue and cross-objection of the assessee are dismissed

ITA 6693/MUM/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Jan 2020AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya, Hon'Ble] I.T.A. No. 6693/Mum/2018 Assessment Year: 2011-12 Ito – 17(2)(4) Mumbai..…………………………………………………………............................Appellant Room No. 123B, 1St Floor, Churchgate, Mumbai – 400 020. Vs Nitin Nandkishor Bangad.................................…..........................................................Respondent 59, Gaya Building, 109 Y.M. Road, Masjid Munder, Mumbai – 400 003. [Pan: Abapb 4356 P] C.O. No. 255/Mum/2019 (Arising Out Of Ita No. 6693/Mum/2018) Assessment Year: 2011-12 Nitin Nandkishor Bangad.................................…..............................................................Appellant 59, Gaya Building, 109 Y.M. Road, Masjid Munder, Mumbai – 400 003. [Pan: Abapb 4356 P] Vs Ito – 17(2)(4) Mumbai..…………………………………………………………........................Respondent Room No. 123B, 1St Floor, Churchgate, Mumbai – 400 020. Appearances By: Shri Dharm Veer Singh, Dr Appearing On Behalf Of The Revenue. Shri Vimal Punmiya, Ar Appearing On Behalf Of The Assessee. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : January 16, 2020 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : January 20, 2020 Order

Section 147

assessee and the revenue relate to the addition made by the A.O. and partly deleted by the Ld. CIT(A) in respect of alleged bogus purchases. The A.O. has computed profit at 15.10% on the alleged bogus purchases and by the impugned order, the Ld. CIT(A) confirmed the addition ... estimating income @ 5.25% of alleged bogus purchases. 3. Against the above order passed the appeal and cross-objection are before us. The learned counsel submitted that an identical facts this Tribunal in assessee’s own case for A.Y. 2009-10 by the order dated 09.12.2019 as held as under

Income-Tax Officer, Ward - 14 (2), Pune vs. Yusuf Ismail Shaikh, Pune

In the result, the appeals are dismissed

ITA 1360/PUN/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Pune17 Jan 2020AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri R.S. Syalआयकर अऩीऱ सं. / Ita Nos.1359 & 1360/Pun/2019 ननधधारण वषा / Assessment Years : 2009-10 & 2011-12 The Income Tax Officer Ward 14(2), Pune …....अऩीऱधथी / Appellant बनाम / V/S. Shri Yusuf Ismail Shaikh Sr. No.54, Plot No.93, Swami Vivekanand Estate, Handewadi Road, Hadapsar, Pune – 411028 Pan : Arzps2085B ……प्रत्यथी / Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Sharad Shah, CAFor Respondent: Shri S.P. Walimbe (Addl.CIT)

only issue involved in both the appeals is against restricting the addition made by the AO on account of bogus purchases. 3. Briefly the facts for the assessment year 2009-10 are that the Assessing Officer, on verification of information received from the Maharashtra Sales Tax Department, observed that

Income-Tax Officer, Ward - 14 (2), Pune vs. Yusuf Ismail Shaikh, Pune

In the result, the appeals are dismissed

ITA 1359/PUN/2019[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Pune17 Jan 2020AY 2009-10

For Appellant: Shri Sharad Shah, CAFor Respondent: Shri S.P. Walimbe (Addl.CIT)

M/S Rooplaxmi Steel, Mumbai vs. ITO19(3)(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 2240/MUM/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Jan 2020AY 2011-12

For Appellant: Shri Naveen Kumar MishraFor Respondent: Shri Drop Singh Meena (Sr. AR)

Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148

reopened on the basis of information received from the DGIT(Inv.) Wing, Mumbai in which it was conveyed that the assessee has taken the bogus purchase entries from the following four parties: - Sr, No. Name of hawala parties F.Y. Amount 1 P. M Steel Alloys ... Total 71,74,364 4. After the reply of the assessee, the AO raised the addition @ 100% of the bogus purchase in sum of Rs.71,74,364/- and assessed the income to the tune of Rs.71,74,364/-. Feeling aggrieved, the assessee an appeal before the CIT(A) who confirmed

DCIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Jyoti Buildtech (P) Ltd., New Delhi

Appeal is partly allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 5657/DEL/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi17 Jan 2020AY 2010-11

Bench: Ms Suchitra Kamble & Shri Prashant Maharishi

Section 14ASection 68

erred in deleting the disallowance of Rs. 1,90,32,050/- made by the AO u/s 68 on account of bogus creditors / bogus purchases.? 9. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in confirming the addition ... only out of addition of Rs. 2,64,63,562/- made by the AO on account of bogus purchases and giving the relief of Rs. 2,49,63,562/-.?” 3. The assessee is a company engaged in the business of construction and allied activities for both private and government clients

Jyoti Buildtech Pvt. Ltd., Delhi vs. ACIT, New Delhi

Appeal is partly allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 5093/DEL/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi17 Jan 2020AY 2010-11

Bench: Ms Suchitra Kamble & Shri Prashant Maharishi

Section 14ASection 68

ITO - WD- 2(2), Thane vs. Shriram C. Yadav, Bhayander

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed and cross-objection by the Assessee stands partly allowed

ITA 5637/MUM/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 Jan 2020AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya, Hon'Ble & Shri Pawan Singh, Hon'Ble] I.T.A. No. 5637/Mum/2018 Assessment Year: 2011-12 Ito – Wd-2(2), Thane..…………………………………………………………...............................Appellant Room No. 26, ‘’B’’ Wing, 6Th Floor, Ashar I.T. Park, Wagle Industrial Estate, Road No. 16Z, Ambika Nagar, Thane – 400 604. Vs Shriram C. Yadav.................................…..........................................................................Respondent 7, Jas Industrial Estate, Everest Industrial Estate, B.P. Road, Goddev Nake, Bhayander (E) – 401 105. [Pan: Aalpy 4166 E] C.O. No. 200/Mum/2019 (Arising Out Of Ita No. 5637/Mum/2018) Assessment Year: 2011-12 Shriram C. Yadav.................................…..............................................................................Appellant 7, Jas Industrial Estate, Everest Industrial Estate, B.P. Road, Goddev Nake, Bhayander (E) – 401 105. [Pan: Aalpy 4166 E] Vs Ito – Wd-2(2), Thane..…………………………………………………………..........................................................Respondent Room No. 26, ‘’B’’ Wing, 6Th Floor, Ashar I.T. Park, Wagle Industrial Estate, Road No. 16Z, Ambika Nagar, Thane – 400 604. Appearances By: Shri Akhtar H. Ansari, Dr Appearing On Behalf Of The Revenue. Shri Nimesh Chothani & Shri Lajori Oswal, Ar Appearing On Behalf Of The Assessee. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : November 21, 2019 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : January 16, 2020 Order

Section 133(6)

food chemical equipments and developing paints machinery. Information was received from the Sales Tax Department. The assessee was beneficiary of accommodation bills for bogus purchases and assessment was reopened. AO made 100% disallowance for the bogus purchases by noting that notices issued u/s 133(6) with the concerned parties were ... that assessee had declared GP of 13.49%. Hence, he computed the differential amount of Rs. 5,04,303/- for the disallowance on account of bogus purchase. 3. Against the order, the Revenue is in appeal before us and assessee has filed cross-objection. We have heard the parties and perused

ITO, WD- 3(3), Kalyan vs. Kumary C. Warrier, Dombivali

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed and appeal by the Assessee stands partly allowed

ITA 5635/MUM/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 Jan 2020AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya, Hon’Ble & Shri Pawan Singh, Hon’Ble] I.T.A. No. 4981 & 4982/Mum/2018 Assessment Year: 2010-11 Kumary C Warrier……...........…...…………..…............................................................................Appellant Flat No. 1102, Silver Heights, Chs, S.N. Road, Tambe Nagar, Mulund (W), Mumbai – 400 080. [Pan: Aacpw 1763 G] Vs. Ito Ward – 3(3), Kalyan……………….......…..…………………....…........................................Respondent Mumbai.

4982/Mum/2018 AND I.T.A. Nos. 5634 & 5635/Mum/2018 Assessment Year: 2010-11 & 2011-12 Kumary C. Warrier the beneficiaries of accommodation entries for obtaining bogus purchase bills, assessment was reopened. AO made disallowance on account of bogus purchases amounting to Rs. 19,11,624/- and Rs. 19,57,455/- respectively ... that in this case the sales have not been doubted. It is settled law that when sales are not doubted, hundred percent disallowance for bogus purchase cannot be done. The rationale being no sales is possible without actual purchases. This proposition is supported from honourable jurisdictional High Court decision

ITO, WD- 3(3), Kalyan vs. Kumary C. Warrier, Dombivali

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed and appeal by the Assessee stands partly allowed

ITA 5634/MUM/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 Jan 2020AY 2010-11

Kumary C. Warrier, Dombivali vs. ITO, WD- 3(3), Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed and appeal by the Assessee stands partly allowed

ITA 4982/MUM/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 Jan 2020AY 2011-12

Kumary C. Warrier, Dombivali vs. ITO, WD- 3(3), Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed and appeal by the Assessee stands partly allowed

ITA 4981/MUM/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 Jan 2020AY 2010-11

DCIT, Circle - 10(2), Kolkata vs. M/S. V2 Retail Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed and the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 723/KOL/2018[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata15 Jan 2020AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri J. Sudhakar Reddy & Shri S.S. Godara]

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 250

I.T.O., Ward-2(1), Ghaziabad vide a letter dated 21.04.2014 that the company M/s. V2 Retail Limited had taken accommodation entries in form of bogus purchases for Rs.25,65,05,225/- F.Y. 2007-08 (pertaining to A.Y.2008-09) from various persons namely Shri Nirbhay Shankar Gupta, Shri Shyam Shankar Gupta, Shri

V2 Retail Ltd., Kolkata vs. DCIT, Circle - 10(2), Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed and the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 611/KOL/2018[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata15 Jan 2020AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri J. Sudhakar Reddy & Shri S.S. Godara]

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 250

Rollmans Aluminium Pvt Ltd, Mumbai vs. ITO 8(1)(2), Mumbai

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

ITA 4/MUM/2019[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai15 Jan 2020AY 2009-10

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Akhtar Ali Ansari (DR)

Section 143(1)Section 147

same. Thereafter, an information was received from the Investigation Wing Department, Mumbai in which it was conveyed that the assessee has made the bogus purchase entries of Rs.30,88,658/- from the following two parties. Name of the Party Hawala TIN PAN Amount Woodland Mercantile Company 27660623683V AAACW7141F ... dated 09.03.2016 was issued and served upon the assessee. The AO restricted the addition to the extent of 12.5% of the bogus purchase in sum of Rs.3,86,082/-. The total income of the assessee was assessed to the tune of Rs.12,37,680/-. Feeling aggrieved, the assessee 2 A.Y.2009-10

M/S A J M & Co., Mumbai vs. DCIT.15(1)(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 225/MUM/2019[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai15 Jan 2020AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh , Jm & Shri M.Balaganesh, Am M/S. A.J.M. & Co., Vs. Dy. Cit-15(1)(1) Dc-8132, Bharat Diamond Aayakar Bhavan Bourse, Bandra-Kurla Complex, Churchgate Bandra East Mumbai Mumbai – 400 051 Pan/Gir No.Aakfm0310R (Appellant) .. (Respondent)

Section 143(3)

justified in confirming the addition of Rs.16,36,417/- 2 M/s. A.J.M. & Co., computed at 12.5% on the value of bogus purchase of Rs.1,30,91,939/- in the facts and circumstances of the case. 3. We have heard rival submissions and perused the materials available on record. We find ... such alleged purchases @12.5% on estimated basis and made an addition of Rs.16,36,417/-. This addition @12.5% on the value of alleged bogus purchases was upheld by the ld. CIT(A). We find that this Tribunal in most of the cases in respect of assessee’s engaged in manufacturing

Nitin Nandkishore Bangad, Mumbai vs. ITO Ward 17(2)(4), Mumbai

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

ITA 1/MUM/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai15 Jan 2020AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya, Am & Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.01/Mum/2019 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2010-11) Nitin Nandkishore Bangad बिधम/ Ito Ward 17(2)(4) 59, Gaya Building, 109, R. No.123/B 1St Floor, Vs. Y.M. Road, Masjid Bunder Aayakar Bhavan, Mumbai- (W), Mumbai-03. 400020. स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. :Abapb4356P (अपीलाथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) Assessee By: None Revenue By: Shri Akhtar Ali Ansari (Dr) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 09/01/2020 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 15/01/2020 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amarjit Singh, Jm: The Assessee Has Filed The Present Appeal Against The Order Dated 22.11.2018 Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) -28, Mumbai [Hereinafter Referred To As The “Cit(A)”] Relevant To The A.Y.2010- 11. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds: -

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Akhtar Ali Ansari (DR)

Section 143(1)Section 148

added to incomes comes to 21.35% (i.e. 12.5% + 8.85%). This is very high and unreasonable. Your appellant prays to take reasonable G.P. of alleged bogus purchases and make additions accordingly. A.Y.2010-11 2. Your appellant keeps the right to add, amend or alter any of the above grounds on or before ... kits & equipment’s. Thereafter, an information was received from the DGIT(Inv.), Mumbai in which it was conveyed that the assessee has made the bogus purchase entries of Rs.1,66,34,537/- from the following fifteen parties. Sr. Name of the Party Amount No 1 Palak Enterprises

ITO 17 (2)(5), Mumbai vs. Parindra Harshad Bhuta, Mumbai

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

ITA 7480/MUM/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai15 Jan 2020AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya, Am & Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.7480/Mum/2018 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2010-11) Ito 17(2)(5) बिधम/ Parindra Harshad Bhuta Room No.123A, 1St Floor, 37, Ismail Building, Nagdevi Vs. Aayakar Bhawan, Street, Masjid Bunder, Churchgate, Mumbai- Mumbai-400003. 400020. स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaqpb4539D (अपीलाथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) Revenue By: Shri Akhtar Ali Ansari (Dr) Assessee By: None सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 07/01/2020 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 15/01/2020 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amarjit Singh, Jm: The Revenue Has Filed The Present Appeal Against The Order Dated 05.10.2018 Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) -58, Mumbai [Hereinafter Referred To As The “Cit(A)”] Relevant To The A.Y.2010- 11. 2. The Revenue Has Raised The Following Grounds: -

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Akhtar Ali Ansari (DR)

Section 143(2)Section 147

justified in restricting the addition made by the A.O. to 10% of Rs.20,67,806/- 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 A.Y.2010-11 producing the supplier for examination or by furnishing other ... dated 24.03.2015. Thereafter, notices u/s 143(2) & 142(1) of the Act were issued and served upon the assessee. The assesse has taken the bogus purchase entries in sum of Rs.20,67,806/-. The AO by applying the decision of Hon’ ble Gujarat High Court in the case

Charm International, Mumbai vs. ITO-19(1)(3), Mumbai

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

ITA 7393/MUM/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai15 Jan 2020AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya, Am & Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.7393/Mum/2018 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2009-10) Charm International बिधम/ Ito-19(1)(3) 2Nd Floor, Matrumandir, 462, S. V. P. Road, Peerbhoy Vs. Mansion, 3Rd Floor, Mumbai- Tardeo Road, Mumbai- 400004. 400007. स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. :Aaahc1335E (अपीलाथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) Assessee By: None Revenue By: Shri Akhtar Ali Ansari (Dr) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 06/01/2020 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 15/01/2020 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amarjit Singh, Jm: The Assessee Has Filed The Present Appeal Against The Order Dated 27.09.2018 Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) -29, Mumbai [Hereinafter Referred To As The “Cit(A)”] Relevant To The A.Y.2009- 10. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds: -

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Akhtar Ali Ansari (DR)

Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)

returned income. Thereafter, an information was received from the DGIT(Inv.) Wing, Mumbai in which it was conveyed that the assessee has made the bogus purchase entries of Rs.9,956,258/- from the following parties. Name of the Party F.Y. Amount Total Dhruv Sales Corporation ... were issued and served upon the assessee and the AO restricted the addition to the extent of 12.5% of the bogus purchase in sum of Rs.9,956,258/- i.e. Rs.12,44,533/-. The total income of the assessee was assessed to the tune of Rs.15,55,240/-. Feeling aggrieved