“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

Shri Ramesh L. Jain (HUF), Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer-19(3)(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 5856/MUM/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Sept 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Ble & Shri N.K. Pradhan, Hon'Ble

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Smt Jothilakshmi Nayak

Section 143(1)Section 145(3)Section 147

sustaining the reopening of assessment u/s. 147 of the Act and all other grounds on merits in estimating the profit element on alleged bogus purchases @12.5%. 2 ITA.NO.5856/MUM/2018 (A.Y: 2009-10) Shri Ramesh L. Jain (HUF) 3. Briefly stated the facts are that, the assessee is engaged ... appellant that the AO has received specific and credible information from the DGIT(Inv.), Mumbai that the assessee was involved in making bogus purchases through hawala dealers to the extent of Rs. 3,07,72,603/-. The information prima facie revealed that the appellant has claimed purchases

Raghubirdayal Khandelwal, Pune vs. Income-Tax Officer, Ward - 9 (2), Pune

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 312/PUN/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Pune23 Sept 2019AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am आयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.311 & 312/Pun/2019 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2010-11 & 2011-12 Raghubirdayal Khandelwal, Laxmi Niwas, Plot No.159, Sector- 27, Nigdi-Pradhikaran, Pune-411044. अपीलाथ"/Appellant Pan : Abjpk9531C …. Vs. Ito, Ward-9(2), …. ""थ" / Respondent Pune. अपीलाथ" क" ओर से / Appellant By : Shri Parag Bhujwal ""थ" की ओर से / Respondent By : Mrs. Shabana Parveen, Shri Manoj Kumar Mrs. Deepa Hairy सुनवाई क" तारीख / घोषणा क" तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 04.09.2019 Date Of Pronouncement: 23.09.2019 आदेश / Order Per D. Karunakara Rao, Am : There Are Two Appeals Under Consideration Filed By The Assessee. Both The Appeals Are Directed Against The Order Of Cit(A)-8, Pune Commonly Dated 20.12.2018 For The Assessment Years 2010-11 & 2011-12 Respectively. Since The Facts & Issues Are Common In Both The Appeals, Therefore, These Were Heard Together & Are Being Disposed Of By This Composite Order.

For Appellant: Shri Parag BhujwalFor Respondent: Mrs. Shabana Parveen

case, the Ld. CIT(A) was justified in confirming the addition of Rs.1,08,035/- for purchases made from suspected hawala suppliers as bogus purchases.” 3. Before us, at the outset, ld. Counsel for the assessee demonstrated that this is a case of bogus purchases where the trail of goods ... both the officers i.e. Assessing Officer and CIT(A) resorted to make the addition applying the ad- hoc rate of 25% of the said bogus purchases for the assessment years 2010-11 and 2011-12 respectively. The additions are Rs.1,08,035/- for A.Y. 2010-11 and Rs.4

Raghubirdayal Khandelwal, Pune vs. Income-Tax Officer, Ward - 9 (2), Pune

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 311/PUN/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Pune23 Sept 2019AY 2010-11

For Appellant: Shri Parag BhujwalFor Respondent: Mrs. Shabana Parveen

Jayant Ashok Joshi, Nashik vs. Income Tax Officer

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 55/PUN/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Pune23 Sept 2019AY 2010-11

For Appellant: Smt. Deepa KhareFor Respondent: Shri S. P. Walimbe

Section 147

appeal at the time of hearing.” 3. Before us, at the outset, ld. Counsel for the assessee demonstrated that this is a case of bogus purchases where the trail of goods were demonstrated. Further, bringing our attention to the order of the Assessing Officer and the CIT(A), ld. Counsel ... both the officers i.e. Assessing Officer and CIT(A) resorted to make the addition applying the ad-hoc rate of 25% of the said bogus purchases for the assessment years 2009-10 and 2010-11 respectively. The additions are Rs.52,64,634/- for A.Y. 2009-10 and Rs.24

Smt.Ramila Jethmal Bothra, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 19(3)(1), Mumbai

In the result, these assessee's appeals stand partly allowed

ITA 4417/MUM/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Sept 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya (Am)

appeals by the assessee wherein the assessee is aggrieved that the learned CIT-A has erred in sustaining 12.5% disallowance on account of bogus purchases, for assessment years 2009-10 & 2010-11. 2. Brief facts of the case are that assessee in this case is engaged in trading in ferrous ... 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

Sri.C.Shaji, Trivandrum vs. The ITO, Ward-2(1), Trivndrum

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 505/COCH/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin20 Sept 2019AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & Shri George George K, Jm

For Appellant: Dr.Pradeep K.P., AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt.A.S.Bindhu, Sr.DR

purchased timber have not been identified by him and therefore, the purchases cannot be genuine. Hence, treated the alleged purchases made from "others" as bogus purchase and accordingly brought the value of the same to tax. 5. Aggrieved by the order of assessment, the assessee preferred appeal to the first ... above, I find no infirmity in the decision the Assessing Officer has taken to bring to tax a sum of Rs.73,34,227/- as bogus purchase and accordingly, the same is confirmed. As a result, appeal on this ground stands dismissed.” 7. Aggrieved by the order

Milan Kantilal Shah, Mumbai vs. ITO - WD- 22 (1)(3), Mumbai

In the result, both, the appeals of assessee are partly allowed

ITA 5162/MUM/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 Sept 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Sri Shamim Yahya, Am आयकर अपील िं/ Ita No. 5161/Mum/2018 (यिर्ाारण बर्ा / Assessment Year 2009-10) आयकर अपील िं/ Ita No. 5162/Mum/2018 (यिर्ाारण बर्ा / Assessment Year 2010-11) Mr. Milan Kantilal Shah 203, Ami Villa Society, Amrut Nagar, Ghatkopar ……………. Appellant West Mumbai-400 086 / अपीलाथी स्थायी लेखा िं /Pan – Aamps9266N V/S The Income Tax Officer, …………….Respondent Ward 27(2)(3), 4Th Floor, Vashi Income Tax, / प्रत्यथााी Mumbai अपीलाथाी की ओर े / Appellant By : Dharmil Jhaveri, Ar प्रत्यथाी की ओर े / Respondent By : Akhtar H Ansari, Dr ुिवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 19.09.2019 घोर्णा की तारीख / Date Of Pronouncement : 19.09.2019 A A D O S A / O R D E R

For Appellant: Dharmil Jhaveri, ARFor Respondent: Akhtar H Ansari, DR

Section 133(6)Section 147

appeals of assessee is against the order of CIT(A) confirming the addition made by AO applying the profit rate at 12.5% of the bogus purchase. For this assessee has raised identically worded grounds in both the years except the quantum. The facts and circumstances are exactly identical in both ... according to us a profit rate of 12.5% is on higher side as assessee has also paid the VAT element on these bogus purchases, a further deduction in estimation of profit to the extent of 7.5% can be allowed. Hence, we direct the AO to recompute the income after

Milan Kantilal Shah, Mumbai vs. ITO WD - 27(2)(3), Mumbai

In the result, both, the appeals of assessee are partly allowed

ITA 5161/MUM/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 Sept 2019AY 2009-10

For Appellant: Dharmil Jhaveri, ARFor Respondent: Akhtar H Ansari, DR

Section 133(6)Section 147

Shri Kamleshkumar G Sanghvi, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer Ward-19(2)(2), Mumbai

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 5127/MUM/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 Sept 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Sri Shamim Yahya, Am आयकर अपील िं/ Ita No. 5127/Mum/2018 (यिर्ाारण बर्ा / Assessment Year 2009-10) Shri Kamleshkumar G Sanghvi M/S Kamlesh Steel & Engg. Co. Room No. 11, Mapkar Building, ……………. Appellant 1St Floor, 1St Panjarapole Land, / अपीलाथी Mumbai-400 004 स्थायी लेखा िं /Pan – Acaps6537N V/S The Income Tax Officer …………….Respondent Ward 19(2)(2) / प्रत्यथााी Matru Mandir, Nana Chowk Mumbai-400 007, अपीलाथाी की ओर े / Appellant By : Shri Vimal Punamiya, Ar प्रत्यथाी की ओर े / Respondent By : Shri Akhtar H Ansari, Dr ुिवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 19.09.2019 घोर्णा की तारीख / Date Of Pronouncement : 19.09.2019 A A D O S A / O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri Vimal Punamiya, ARFor Respondent: Shri Akhtar H Ansari, DR

Section 147

assessee is against the order of CIT(A) confirming the action of the AO in estimating the profit rate at 12.5% of the bogus purchases. 3. Briefly stated facts are that the assessee engaged in the business of trading in Ferrous & Ferrous Metals. The AO received information from DGIT (Investigation ... returned income of the assessee Aggrieved, assessee preferred the appeal before CIT(A), who sustained the disallowance at 12.5% of the bogus purchases by observing in para 5.7 & 5.8 and by following the decision of Hon’ble Gujarat High court in the case of CIT vs. Smith P. Seth

Kay Kay Synthetics, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 17(2)(2), Mumbai

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 5126/MUM/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 Sept 2019AY 2011-12

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Sri Shamim Yahya, Am आयकर अपील िं/ Ita No. 5126/Mum/2018 (यिर्ाारण बर्ा / Assessment Year 2011-12) Kay Kay Synthetics 229, Yusuf Meherali Road, 2Nd Floor, ……………. Appellant Mumbai-400 003 / अपीलाथी स्थायी लेखा िं /Pan – Aaafk0934D V/S The Income Tax Officer …………….Respondent Ward 17(2)(2) / प्रत्यथााी M.K. Road, Aayakar Bhavan, Mumbai-400 020 अपीलाथाी की ओर े / Appellant By : Shri Vimal Punamiya, Ar प्रत्यथाी की ओर े / Respondent By : Shri Akhtar H Ansari, Dr ुिवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 19.09.2019 घोर्णा की तारीख / Date Of Pronouncement : 19.09.2019 A A D O S A / O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri Vimal Punamiya, ARFor Respondent: Shri Akhtar H Ansari, DR

Section 147

order of CIT(A) directing the AO to restrict the addition made by AO being estimating profit percentage at the rate of 8 % on bogus purchases. 3. Briefly stated facts are that the assessee engaged in the business of manufacture/ processor of various yarns. The AO received information from DGIT ... circumstances of the case. We find that the CIT(A) has restricted the addition made by AO by estimating the profit @ 8% of the bogus purchases. We also find that the Revenue has not doubted the sales carried out of the bogus purchases by the assessee. The assessee also maintain

M/S.Lalit Silk Industries, Mumbai vs. ITO Ward 17(2)(2), Mumbai

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 5125/MUM/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 Sept 2019AY 2011-12

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Sri Shamim Yahya, Am आयकर अपील िं/ Ita No. 5125/Mum/2018 (यिर्ाारण बर्ा / Assessment Year 2011-12) M/S Lalit Silk Industries 2Nd Floor, 229 Masjid Bundar Road, ……………. Appellant Mumbai-400 003 / अपीलाथी स्थायी लेखा िं /Pan – Aaafl0138J V/S The Income Tax Officer …………….Respondent Ward 17(2)(2), Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road, / प्रत्यथााी Mumbai-400 020 अपीलाथाी की ओर े / Appellant By : Shri Vimal Punamiya, Ar प्रत्यथाी की ओर े / Respondent By : Shri Akhtar H Ansari, Dr ुिवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 19.09.2019 घोर्णा की तारीख / Date Of Pronouncement : 19.09.2019 A A D O S A / O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri Vimal Punamiya, ARFor Respondent: Shri Akhtar H Ansari, DR

Section 147

order of CIT(A) directing the AO to restrict the addition made by AO being estimating profit percentage at the rate of 8 % on bogus purchases. 3. Briefly stated facts are that the assessee engaged in the business of manufacture/ processor of Yarn. The AO received information from DGIT (Investigation ... circumstances of the case. We find that the CIT(A) has restricted the addition made by AO by estimating the profit @ 8% of the bogus purchases. We also find that the Revenue has not doubted the sales carried out of the bogus purchases by the assessee. The assessee also maintain

ACIT, New Delhi vs. Shri Ramit Vohra, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 4373/DEL/2012[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi19 Sept 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu & Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

For Appellant: Shri G.S. Kohli, CAFor Respondent: Shri Surender Pal, Sr. DR

rebuttal under rule 46 A. 7. That the Ld. CIT (A) erred in deleting the addition of Rs.20,69,898/- made on account of bogus purchases merely on the submission of the assessee completely ignoring the fact that assessee failed to furnish neither the complete address nor the confirmations ... before the CIT (A). 8. That the Ld. CIT (A) erred in deleting the addition of Rs.20,69,898/- made on account of bogus purchases on the CIT v. Escorts Ltd. (338 ITR 435) as the facts of this case are completely different and the ratio decidendi of above judgment

Income Tax Officer-24(1)(5), Mumbai vs. Shri Dinesh Mahavir Prasad Bhartia, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed as not maintainable and Cross Objection of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 1679/MUM/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Sept 2019AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri M.Balaganesh, Am & Shri Ram Lal Negi, Jm Income Tax Officer – Vs. Shri Dinesh Mahavir Prasad 24(1)(5), Bhartia R.No.523, 5Th Floor Nand Bhavan 3, Piramal Chambers J.P.Road Lalbaug, Parel Andheri (W) Mumbai -400 012 Mumbai – 400 053 Pan/Gir No. Aetpb8761J (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Co No.151/Mum/2019 (Arising Out Of Ita No.1679/Mum/2018) (Assessment Year :2013-14) Shri Dinesh Mahavir Vs. Income Tax Officer – 24(1)(5), R.No.523, 5Th Floor Prasad Bhartia Nand Bhavan 3, Piramal Chambers J.P.Road Lalbaug, Parel Andheri (W) Mumbai -400 012 Mumbai – 400 053 Pan/Gir No. Aetpb8761J (Appellant) .. (Respondent)

Section 133(6)Section 143(3)

this Cross Objection by the assessee is as to whether the ld. CIT(A) was justified in estimating profits at 12.5% on alleged bogus purchases of Rs.1,14,50,804/- in the facts and circumstances of the case. 7. We have heard rival submissions and perused the material available ... certain decisions of this Tribunal and various Courts, the ld. CIT(A) estimated the profit of the assessee at 12.5% on the alleged bogus purchases and restricted the addition to 14,31,350/-. 8. Aggrieved, the assessee is in appeal before us. 9. We find that the gross profit declared

DCIT Cent.Cir-7(3), Mumbai vs. M/S.K.Amishkumar Trading Private Limited, Mumbai

In the result, all the appeals of the revenue and cross objections of assessee are dismissed

ITA 5536/MUM/2017[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Sept 2019AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Ramesh C Sharma & Shri Pawan Singh

For Appellant: Shri B. Sriniwas (CIT-DR)

Section 132(1)Section 139Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 153A(1)

years under consideration, the revenue is aggrieved by the action of the ld. CIT(A) for restricting the addition on account of bogus purchases to the extent of 12.5% of such purchases. 4. Rival contentions have been heard and record perused. The brief facts of the case are that ... less G.P. already declared by the assessee on such purchases. Precise observation of the ld. CIT(A) was as under: “8.3.5. Addition of entire bogus purchase to total income : The A.O. has made an addition of Rs. 14,97,68,202/-, in A.Y. 2008-09, by treating the entire purchases

Jawataram S. Dewasi, Mumbai vs. ITO - 19 (2)(1), Mumbai

The appeal stands partly allowed

ITA 5087/MUM/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Sept 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am आयकरअपील सं./ I.T.A. No.5087/Mum/2018 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year:2010-11) & आयकरअपील सं./ I.T.A. No.5137/Mum/2018 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year:2011-12) Shri Jawataram S. Dewasi Income Tax Officer-19(2)(1) M/S. Supermax Metal, Room No.4 Tardeo बनाम/ 92, Krishna Bhavan Mumbai-400 007. Vs. 2Nd Kumbharwada, Sant Sena Maharaj Marg Mumbai-400 004. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Ahzpd-1052-B (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" / Respondent) : Revenue By : Shri Akhtar H. Ansari-Ld.Dr Assessee By : Assessee-In-Person सुनवाई की तारीख/ : 17/09/2019 Date Of Hearing घोषणा की तारीख / : 17/09/2019 Date Of Pronouncement

For Appellant: Assessee-in-PersonFor Respondent: Shri Akhtar H. Ansari-Ld.DR

Section 133(6)Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 234Section 271(1)(c)

r.w.s. 147 on 17/03/2016 wherein the income of the assessee was determined at Rs.16.03 Lacs after sole addition of alleged bogus purchases for Rs.11.74 Lacs as against returned income of Rs.4.28 Lacs filed by the assessee on 10/09/2010 which was processed u/s.143(1). 2.2 Pursuant to receipt of certain information ... from investigation wing / Sales tax Department, Govt. of Maharashtra, it transpired that the assessee stood beneficiary of alleged bogus purchases to the tune of Rs.93.99 Lacs from 16 entities, the details of which have already been tabulated at para- 5.1 of the quantum assessment order. Accordingly, as per due process

Kalpsaru Diamonds, Mumbai vs. ITO 19 (2)(2), Mumbai

The appeal stands dismissed

ITA 5082/MUM/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Sept 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am आयकरअपील सं./ I.T.A. No.5082/Mum/2018 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year:2010-11) Kalpsaru Diamonds Income Tax Officer-19(2)(2) बनाम/ Jw8040, Bharat Diamond Bourse Matru Mandir Bandra Kurla Complex Grant Road(W) Vs. Bandra (E), Mumbai-400 051. Mumbai 400 007. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aaafk 6960 H (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" / Respondent) : Revenue By : Shri Akhtar H. Ansari-Ld.Dr Assessee By : Shri Pramod Kumar Parida-Ld. Ar सुनवाई की तारीख/ : 17/09/2019 Date Of Hearing घोषणा की तारीख / : 17/09/2019 Date Of Pronouncement

For Appellant: Shri Pramod Kumar Parida-Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri Akhtar H. Ansari-Ld.DR

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 145(3)Section 148

29/IT-308/ITO-19(2)(2)/2017-18 dated 03/05/2018 qua confirmation of 2 Kalpsaru Diamonds Assessment Year 2010-11 certain additions on account of alleged bogus purchases. The assessee has also contested the validity of reassessment proceedings. 2.1 Facts on record would reveal that the assessee being resident firm stated to be engaged

ITO -WD- 3 (1), Kalyan vs. Bhadresh Jayantilal Shah, Dombivali

The appeal stands dismissed

ITA 5079/MUM/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Sept 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am आयकरअपील सं./ I.T.A. No.5079/Mum/2018 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year:2009-10) & आयकरअपील सं./ I.T.A. No.5080/Mum/2018 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year:2010-11) Income Tax Officer-Ward-3(1)-Kalyan Shri Bhadresh Jayantilal Shah 2Nd Floor, Rani Mansion बनाम/ B-106, Shivam Apartment Kalyan-Murbad Road Veer Sawarkar Road, Dombivali (E) Vs. Nr. Sbi, Kalyan (W)-421 301. Mumbai-421 201. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aeeps-2956-R (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" / Respondent) : Revenue By : Shri Akhtar H. Ansari-Ld.Dr Assessee By : Shri Vimal Punamia-Ld. Ar सुनवाई की तारीख/ : 17/09/2019 Date Of Hearing घोषणा की तारीख / : 17/09/2019 Date Of Pronouncement आदेश / O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri Vimal Punamia-Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri Akhtar H. Ansari-Ld.DR

Section 133(6)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 145(3)Section 147Section 148Section 44A

r.w.s. 147 on 30/12/2014 wherein the income of the assessee was determined at Rs.12.57 Lacs, after sole addition of alleged bogus purchases for Rs.10.85 Lacs as against returned income of ITA No.5079-80/Mum/2018 Bhadresh Jayantilal Shah Assessment Years 2009-10 & 2010-11 Rs.1.71 Lacs e-filed by the assessee on 25/09/2009 ... Pursuant to receipt of certain information from investigation wing / Sales tax Department, Govt. of Maharashtra, it transpired that the assessee stood beneficiary of alleged bogus purchases to the tune of Rs.10.85 Lacs from an entity namely M/s S.M.Trading Co. Accordingly, as per due process of law, re-assessment proceedings were

Alaram Rajuram Prajapat, Thane vs. ITO WD - 2(3), Thane

ITA 5071/MUM/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Sept 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am आयकरअपील सं./ I.T.A. No.5071/Mum/2018 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year:2009-10) M/S. Alaram Rajuram Prajapat Income Tax Officer Ward-2(3) C/703, Liberty Corner बनाम/ Bhd Municipal Garden Thane. Vs. Near Ram Dev Park, Mira Road (E) Thane-401 107. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Adhpp-2473-N (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" / Respondent) : Revenue By : Shri Akhtar H. Ansari-Ld.Dr Assessee By : None सुनवाई की तारीख/ : 17/09/2019 Date Of Hearing घोषणा की तारीख / : 17/09/2019 Date Of Pronouncement

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Akhtar H. Ansari-Ld.DR

Section 143(3)

Appeal No.33/16-17/NSK(Old 061/15-16/THN) dated 16/03/2017 qua 2 Alaram Rajuram Prajapat Assessment Year 2009-10 confirmation of certain additions on account of alleged bogus purchases. None has appeared for assessee and no valid adjournment application is on record. Left with no option, we proceed to adjudicate the same after hearing ... impugned AY u/s. 143(3) r.w.s. 147 on 09/03/2015 wherein the assessee was saddled with addition of Rs.18.46 Lacs on account of alleged bogus purchases stated to be made from 2 entities. Although the assessee preferred further appeal, however, the assessee did not attend the appellate proceedings and accordingly

Pawankumar Nagraj Mehta, Mumbai vs. ACIT- 19 (2), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee partly allowed

ITA 2847/MUM/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Sept 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Rajesh Kumarassessment Year: 2010-11

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Ms. Kusum Bansal, D.R

Section 143(1)Section 145(3)Section 147Section 148

raised by the assessee is against the confirmation of addition to the tune of Rs.13,21,573/- equal to 6.5% of the total alleged bogus purchases as against the 2 Mr. Pawankumar Nagraj Mehta addition of Rs.25,41,487/- made by the AO being 25% of the alleged bogus purchases ... issuing notice under section 148 dated 20.10.2014 after the AO received the information from DGIT (Inv.), Mumbai that assessee has entered into hawala bogus purchase transactions from pioneer oversees to the tune of Rs.2,03,31,893/-. Pertinent to state that assessee filed return on 30.09.2010 declaring an income

Income Tax Officer 10(3)(1), Mumbai vs. Nautica Clothing India Private Limited, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of Revenue, as well as assessee are dismissed

ITA 7152/MUM/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Sept 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Rajesh Kumarincome Tax Officer 10(3)(1), Room No.621, 6Th Floor, Aaykar Bhavan, M.K.Road, Mumbai 400 020 ...... Appellant Vs. M/S. Nautica Clothing India Pvt. Ltd. 1008, 10Th Floor, Ijmima Complex, Near Raheja Complex, New Link Road, Malad(West), Mumbai 400 064. Pan: Aaccn 0650Q ..... Respondent M/S. Nautica Clothing India Pvt. Ltd. .... Appellant Mumbai 400 064. Pan: Aaccn 0650Q Vs. Income Tax Officer 10(3)(1), Mumbai 400 020 ...... Respondent Revenue By : Ms. Kavita P. Kaushik Assessee By : Shri Sambhav Shah Date Of Hearing : 17/09/2019 Date Of Pronouncement : 17/09/2019

For Appellant: Shri Sambhav ShahFor Respondent: Ms. Kavita P. Kaushik

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)

Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short ‘the Act’). Thereafter, assessment was reopened on the ground that assessee has indulged in bogus purchases from suspicious dealers. The Assessing Officer in assessment proceedings made addition of the entire alleged bogus purchases i.e. Rs.73,88,09,154/-. Aggrieved against the assessment order dated ... Tribunal. 3. Ms. Kavita P. Kaushik representing the Department submitted that the CIT(A) has erred in restricting the addition to 12.5% of the bogus purchases. The documents on record clearly indicate that the assessee has indulged in transactions with hawala dealers notified by the Maharashtra Sales Tax Department