“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

Niru Impex, Mumbai vs. DCIT Cen RG 7, Mumbai

In the result, the appeals are partly allowed

ITA 6651/MUM/2012[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 Mar 2018AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh () & Shri N.K. Pradhan () Assessment Year: 2006-07 & Assessment Year: 2007-08 Niru Impex, Dcit- (Osd-1) Central 112/115 The Jewel, Opera Range-7 Vs. House, Tata Rd-2, Mumbai. Mumbai-400004. Pan No. Aacfn2800K (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Mr. B.V. Jhaveri, Ar Revenue By : Mr. M.C. Omi Ningshen, Dr Date Of Hearing : 02/02/2018 Date Of Pronouncement: 19/03/2018

For Appellant: Mr. B.V. Jhaveri, ARFor Respondent: Mr. M.C. Omi Ningshen, DR

Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 147

appeal The learned CIT-(A) has erred in confirming an addition of Rs.7,16,98,624/- and Rs.45,17,013/- being undisclosed income (bogus purchases) and undisclosed income declared by Mr. Anil Vanani, respectively. The addition is unjust, unfair, contrary to the facts of the case ... Anil B. Vanani in his affidavit dated 07.02.2009, but also made an addition of Rs.7,16,98,624/- being undisclosed investment in guise of bogus purchases. 5. Aggrieved by the order of the AO, the assessee filed an appeal before the Ld. CIT(A). Since the reopening of assessment

Babulal B. Kanungo, Mumbai vs. ITO WD 19(1)(2), Mumbai

In the result, all the appeals of both the assessees are allowed in part for statistical purposes

ITA 3410/MUM/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai14 Mar 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri R.C.Sharma, Am & Shri Ram Lal Negi, Jm

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

Common grounds have been raised by both the assessees with regard to the addition of 12.5% made in respect of bogus purchases found during the course of survey. Assessee has also challenged reopening of assessment u/s.147. Facts of both the assessees are same in both the years under consideration ... issue would boil down whether the element of profit adopted by the AO @12.5% treating the same as the profit element embedded in such bogus purchases, which the appellant would have made from some unknown entities is correct or not. Gujarat High Court in the case of Bholanath Poly

Bipin Engineers Pvt. Ltd., Pune vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax

In the result, both the appeals of assessee are allowed

ITA 1143/PUN/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Pune09 Mar 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Sharad ShahFor Respondent: Dr. Vivek Aggarwal

Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

solar water heating systems. During the course of reassessment proceedings in both the impugned assessment years, the Assessing Officer made addition on account of bogus purchases by assessee from alleged Hawala dealers. In assessment year 2009-10 the Assessing Officer made addition of Rs.18,64,777/- and in assessment year

Bipin Engineers Pvt. Ltd., Pune vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax

In the result, both the appeals of assessee are allowed

ITA 1142/PUN/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Pune09 Mar 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Sharad ShahFor Respondent: Dr. Vivek Aggarwal

Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

Bechan Surajbali Kumbhar, Nashik vs. Income-Tax Officer

In the result, appeal of assessee is allowed

ITA 2357/PUN/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Pune07 Mar 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.2357/Pun/2016 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2011-12

For Appellant: Shri Sanket JoshiFor Respondent: Shri Ajay Modi

Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 148

appeal:- 1. Without considering the fact and circumstances of the case, the Assessing Officer has erred in making disallowance under the pretext of bogus purchases and the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-1, Nashik has erred in confirming the disallowance to the extent of 25%. 2. Without considering facts ... basis and is on a higher side. 3. The only issue raised in the present appeal is against the addition made on account of bogus purchases. 4. Briefly, in the facts of the case, the assessee was engaged in the business of manufacturing of steel products. The Assessing Officer received

Inter Carat Jewellery Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer 8(2)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed and Stay

ITA 307/MUM/2018[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai07 Mar 2018AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran (Am)& Shri Pawan Singh (Jm)

Section 148Section 69C

relates to A.Y. 2006- 07. The assessee is aggrieved by the decision of the learned CIT(A) in confirming the addition relating to bogus purchases of diamonds. 2. The assessee is engaged in the business of manufacturing and selling of Gold/silver jewellery and trading of Diamond and colour stones. During ... manufacturing activity or 2.5% across the board. Accordingly the SMC bench sustained the addition to the extent of 2.5% of value of alleged bogus purchases. The Ld A.R also placed reliance on the decision dated 30.10.2017 rendered by the co-ordinate bench in the case of M/s Choron Diamond

Bharav Tube (India), Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer 19(1)(2), Mumbai

In the result, this appeal by the assessee stands allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 6782/MUM/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai07 Mar 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya, Am आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 6782/Mum/2017 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2010-11) M/S. Bharav Tube (India) Income Tax Officer 19(1)(2) C/O. M/S. Nakoda Metal Industries, Room No. 204, Matru Mandir, बनाम/ Room No. 101, 1St Floor, Tardeo, Mumbai-400 004 Lakdawala Saphire Centre, Vs. 4Th Kumbharwada Lane, Mumbai-400 004 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. Aaeft 1198 E (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) : अपीलाथ" क" ओर से / Appellant By : None ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri Saurabh Deshpande सुनवाई क" तार"ख / : 01.03.2018 Date Of Hearing घोषणा क" तार"ख / : 07.03.2018 Date Of Pronouncement आदेश / O R D E R Per Shamim Yahya, A. M.: This Is An Appeal By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) Dated 10.08.2017, Pertaining To Assessment Year 2010-11, Wherein The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) Has Dismissed The Appeal For Non-Prosecution.

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Saurabh Deshpande

Section 143(2)Section 148

wherein the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has dismissed the appeal for non-prosecution. 2. The issue in this case pertains to bogus purchases. The brief facts are that the assessee has filed its return of income for the assessment year 2010-11 on 2 M/s. Bharav Tube (India ... Rs.1,33,380/-. Subsequently, the Assessing Officer received information from the sales tax department through the DGIT(Inv.), Mumbai that the assessee had procured bogus purchase bills totaling to Rs.2,38,50,302/- from 31 parties. The Assessing Officer issued notice u/s.148 on 21.10.2014. Subsequently, notices u/s.143

Sunil Mohan Lahori, Mumbai vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax 21(3), Mumbai

Appeal stands partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 5948/MUM/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai07 Mar 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Jm & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.5948/Mum/2017 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2009-10) Sunil Mohan Lahori Assistant Commissioner Of 9, Janta Industrial Compound Income-Tax 21(3) बिधम/ 162, Senapati Bapat Marg Mumbai Opp.Phoenix Mall Vs. Lower Parel (West) Mumbai-400 013 स्थामी रेखा सं./ जीआइआय सं./ Pan/Gir No. Aaapl-4422-H (अपीलाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) : & Stay Application No. 91/Mum/2018 [Arising Out Of I.T.A. No. 5948/Mum/2017] [नििाारण वषा /Assessment Year 2009-10] Sunil Mohan Lahori Assistant Commissioner Of 9, Janta Industrial Compound Income-Tax 21(3) बिधम/ 162, Senapati Bapat Marg Mumbai Opp.Phoenix Mall Vs. Lower Parel (West) Mumbai-400 013 स्थामी रेखा सं./ जीआइआय सं./ Pan/Gir No. Aaapl-4422-H (अपीलाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) : Assessee By : Himanshu Gandhi.Ld.Ar Revenue By : Aarju Garodia, Ld. Dr सुनवाई की तारीख / : 28/02/2018 Date Of Hearing घोषणा की तारीख / : 07/03/2018 Date Of Pronouncement

For Appellant: Himanshu Gandhi.Ld.ARFor Respondent: Aarju Garodia, Ld. DR

Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 37Section 41Section 41(1)Section 68Section 69C

erred in confirming disallowance u/s 37 amount Rs.2,07,54,611/- being 50% purchases by treating same as bogus purchase on assumptions basis. 3. On the facts and circumstances of case and in law, Ld. CIT(A) erred in confirming addition u/s 68 amount Rs.2,50,000/- by treating same ... assessee was subject to reassessment proceedings upon receipt of certain information from DGIT (Investigation) / Sales Tax Department, Maharashtra that the assessee stood beneficiary of bogus purchase bills from certain entities. Accordingly, notice u/s 148 dated 03/02/2014 was issued to the assessee. However, the assessee failed to comply with proceedings

Sameer Patel, Mumbai vs. ACIT Cir 19(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 692/MUM/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Mar 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Hon'Ble & Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Ble

For Appellant: Shri Vijay MehtaFor Respondent: Shri V. Justin

Assessment Years 2009-10 & 2010-11. The only issue in the appeals of the assessee is in respect of addition made towards bogus purchases. 2. At the time of hearing Learned Counsel for the assessee submitted before us that on identical facts and circumstances the appeal for the 2 ITA.No ... Assessment Years 2009-10 & 2010-11. 4. We find that the Coordinate Bench by order dated 20.12.2017 in ITA.No. 1943/Mum/2015 considered the disallowance of bogus purchases and keeping in view the Gross Profit rate already shown by the assessee and recording the fact that there could not be any sales

Sameer Patel, Mumbai vs. ACIT Cir 19(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 691/MUM/2015[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Mar 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Hon'Ble & Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Ble

For Appellant: Shri Vijay MehtaFor Respondent: Shri V. Justin

Bharat Wire Ropes Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT (OSD) 10(3), Mumbai

In the result, this appeal by the assessee stands allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 5438/MUM/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Mar 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya, Am & Shri Pawan Singh, Jm आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 5438/Mum/2015 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2011-12) M/S. Bharat Wire Ropes Ltd. Dcit(Osd)-10(3) बनाम/ Aayakar Bhavan, 4Th Floor, A-701, Trade World Building, Kamla City, Lower Parel (W), Room No. 517, M. K. Road, Vs. Mumbai-400 013 Mumbai-400 020 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. Aabcb 2180 N (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) : अपीलाथ" क" ओर से / Appellant By : Shri Mitesh N. Shah ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri T. A. Khan सुनवाई क" तार"ख / : 14.12.2017 Date Of Hearing घोषणा क" तार"ख / : 05.03.2018 Date Of Pronouncement आदेश / O R D E R Per Shamim Yahya, A. M.: This Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) Dated 15.10.2015 & Pertains To The Assessment Year 2011- 12. 2. There Are Two Effective Grounds Raised In This Appeal Which Reads As Under: 1. A) On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Cit(A) Erred In Confirming The Addition To The Extent Of 12.5%, Being Profit Element Embedded In The Alleged Bogus Purchases Of Rs.2,66,19,848/-, Made By The 2 M/S. Bharat Wire Ropes Ltd. A.O. To The Income Of The Appellant On The Basis Of Information Of The Sales Tax Department About Suspicious Dealers.

For Appellant: Shri Mitesh N. ShahFor Respondent: Shri T. A. Khan

Section 133(6)Section 143(3)

case and in law, the CIT(A) erred in confirming the addition to the extent of 12.5%, being profit element embedded in the alleged bogus purchases of Rs.2,66,19,848/-, made by the 2 M/s. Bharat Wire Ropes Ltd. A.O. to the income of the Appellant on the basis ... investment made out of unaccounted money by the assessee for purchase of materials from the parties of Rs.2,66,19,848/- was treated as bogus purchases and added to the returned income of the assessee. 4. Upon the assessee’s appeal, the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) analysis

Asst CIT Cir 3, Kalyan vs. Shankheshwar Kreators, Kalyan

In the result, appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 5351/MUM/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Mar 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Hon'Ble & Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Ble

For Appellant: Shri Subodh RatnaparkhiFor Respondent: Shri V. Justin

Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 40aSection 69C

facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Hon’ble CIT (A) erred in not confirming addition at 100% of bogus purchases of Rs.5,43,06,544/- by relying on the decision of Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in the case of CIT vs Simit ... facts are that, in both these cases assessments were completed u/s. 143(3) on 03.03.2014 by making additions u/s. 69C of the Act towards bogus purchases and also disallowance u/s.40a(ia) for non-deduction of TDS on the provisions made by the assessee for expenses and also certain payments made

Asst CIT Cir 3, Kalyan vs. Shankheshwar Real Estate Co, Kalyan

In the result, appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 5350/MUM/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Mar 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Hon'Ble & Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Ble

For Appellant: Shri Subodh RatnaparkhiFor Respondent: Shri V. Justin

Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 40aSection 69C

ACIT Cir 28(3), Navi Mumbai vs. Sai Shirdi Constructions, Navi Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 5135/MUM/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Mar 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Hon'Ble & Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Ble

For Appellant: Shri S.C. TiwariFor Respondent: Shri V. Justin

Section 133(6)Section 144Section 145Section 69C

facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld.CIT(A) erred in deleting the disallowance made on account of bogus purchase to the tune of ₹.4,35,881/- by the Assessing Officer without considering the fact that the notices issued u/s. 133(6) of the Income ... towards unaccounted sale receipts on certain flats and addition of ₹.4,35,881/- u/s. 69C of the Act treating certain purchases as bogus purchases. The assessee constructed a housing project named “Sai Saakshat” in sector -6, Kharghar, Navi Mumbai having four wings with 15 floors each and the total number

The Deputy Comissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1, Junagadh vs. Smt. Gracy Kuthukmal Thomas, Veraval

In the result, appeals of the Revenue and assessee, both are dismissed

ITA 37/RJT/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot01 Mar 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Amarjit Singh

For Appellant: Shri M.J. Ranpura, ARFor Respondent: Shri Jitendra Kumar, CIT-DR

Section 143(2)Section 80H

fall in gross profit and net profit in itself cannot be a reason to reject the books of account unless specific instances of bogus purchases, expenses and unrecorded sales and instances of excess stock or other such specific irregularity is detected. A particular expenditure may be disallowable

Smt. Gracy Kuthumkal Thomas, Veraval vs. The Joint Commissioner of Income Tax, Junagadh Range-1, Junagadh

In the result, appeals of the Revenue and assessee, both are dismissed

ITA 24/RJT/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot01 Mar 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Amarjit Singh

For Appellant: Shri M.J. Ranpura, ARFor Respondent: Shri Jitendra Kumar, CIT-DR

Section 143(2)Section 80H

DCIT Cent. Cir. - 1(3), Mumbai vs. Poonam Skyline Construction, Mumbai

ITA 2311/MUM/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai01 Mar 2018AY 2011-12

For Appellant: Shri L.S. SinghviFor Respondent: Shri V. Vidhyadhar-DR

Section 143(3)

transportation details.It also could not produce the parties before AO for examination nor did he provide the addresses.Therefore, the AO disallowed the entire bogus purchase of Rs.87.66 lakhs and added it to the total income of the assessee. 3.Aggrieved by the order of the AO the assessee preferred an appeal ... projects under construction . He referred to the order of ITAT Mumbai Benches where it was held that in the cases of bogus purchases entire purchases could not be disallowed and that only profit embedded in doubtful transactions had to be taxed. He referred to the cases of Madhukant B. Gandhi

Rishab Steel ( House), Mumbai vs. Asst CIT 15(2), Mumbai

In the result, this appeal by the assessee stands allowed

ITA 1657/MUM/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai01 Mar 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya, Am & Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.1657/Mum/2016 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2010-11) M/S. Rishab Steel (House) Asst. Cit – 15(2), बनाम/ 101/102, Rishab House, Mumbai 301, Duncan Road, M A Road, Vs. Mumbai-400 004 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. Aacfr 2807 C (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) : अपीलाथ" क" ओर से / Appellant By : Shri M. M. Porwal ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri Rajat Mittal सुनवाई क" तार"ख / : 13.02.2018 Date Of Hearing घोषणा क" तार"ख / : 01.03.2018 Date Of Pronouncement आदेश / O R D E R Per Shamim Yahya, A. M.: This Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) Dated 04.12.2015 & Pertains To The Assessment Year 2010- 11. 2. The Grounds Of Appeal Read As Under: 1. On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case & In Law The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) Erred In Confirming Penalty Levied By Assessing Officer Of Rs.100000/- Under Section 221(1) Of The Act. Provisions Of The Act Ought To Have Been Properly Construed & Regard Being Had To Facts Of The Case No Such Penalty Should Have Been Levied. Reasons Assigned By Him Are Insufficient To Justify Levy Of Penalty Under Section 221(1) Of The Act.

For Appellant: Shri M. M. PorwalFor Respondent: Shri Rajat Mittal

Section 220Section 221(1)Section 271(1)(c)

submitted that the assessee has reasonable belief that addition on which the demand has arisen will be deleted as the issue relates to the bogus purchases and Hon'ble Bombay High Court decision in the case of Nikunj Eximp Enterprises (in writ petition no 2860, order dt. 18.6.2014) has deleted ... assessee had reasonable belief that addition on which demand has arisen would not be sustained in appellate proceedings inasmuch as the issue relates to bogus purchases in which the Assessing Officer has added Rs.8,83,95,948/- being peak investment in bogus purchase. The ld. Counsel of the assessee submitted

Basudev Kumar Sanghai (HUF), Mumbai vs. Addl CIT 14(2), Mumbai

In the result, this appeal by the assessee stands partly allowed

ITA 3740/MUM/2016[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai01 Mar 2018AY 2003-04

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya, Am & Shri Ram Lal Negi, Jm आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.3740/Mum/2016 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2003-04) M/S. Basudev Kumar Sanghai (Huf) Addl. Cit, Ward 14(2), बनाम/ Office No. 419, 4Th Floor, (Acit 18(1)), Aayakar Bhavan, Daulat Bhawan, 407, Kalbadevi Road, Maharshi Karve Road, Vs. Mumbai-400 002 Mumbai-400 020 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. Aaahs 4359 G (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) : अपीलाथ" क" ओर से / Appellant By : Shri Haridas Bhat ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri Ram Tiwari

For Appellant: Shri Haridas BhatFor Respondent: Shri Ram Tiwari

Section 133(6)Section 145(3)

perused the records. Upon careful consideration and carefully examining the facts of the case, we note that basically this is the case of the bogus purchase where the Assessing Officer has elaborately brought on record that purchases are not verifiable. In the absence of the lack of verification of purchase ... this case was originally made. In our considered opinion, on the facts and circumstances of this case, instead of rejection of books, disallowance for bogus purchase needs to be considered. We find that it is incumbent upon the assessee to provide necessary details of purchases for verification thereof

Nyka Steels P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. ACIT Panvel, Panvel

In the result, this appeal by the assessee stands partly allowed

ITA 3737/MUM/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai01 Mar 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya, Am & Shri Ram Lal Negi, Jm आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 3737/Mum/2016 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2009-10) M/S. Nyka Steels Pvt. Ltd. Asst. Cit, Panvel Circle, बनाम/ C-17/6, Midc, Taloja Area, Panvel Vs. Panvel, Dist. Raigad "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. Aacfn 7647 L (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) : अपीलाथ" क" ओर से / Appellant By : None ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri Ram Tiwari सुनवाई क" तार"ख / : 10.01.2018 Date Of Hearing घोषणा क" तार"ख / : 01.03.2018 Date Of Pronouncement आदेश / O R D E R Per Shamim Yahya, A. M.: This Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) Dated 21.03.2016 & Pertains To The Assessment Year 2009- 10. 2. The Grounds Of Appeal Read As Under: 1. On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & Law, The Ld. Cit(A) Erred In Confirming The Reassessment Proceeding Initiated U/S 147 By Issuing Notice U/S 148 Of Income Tax Act, 1961. 2 M/S. Nyka Steels Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Asst. Cit 2. On The Facts & Circumstances Of Case & Law, The Ld. Cit(A) Erred In Confirming Disallowance Of Genuine Purchases Of Rs.1,51,97,687/- As Bogus Purchase From Suspicious Parties. 3. On The Facts & Circumstances Of Case & Law, The Ld. Cit(A) Erred In Confirming Levy Of Interest U/S 234B & 234C Of Income Tax Act. 4. On The Facts & Circumstances Of Case & Law, The Ld. Cit(A) Erred In Confirming The Initiation Of Penalty Proceeding U/S 271Fl)(C) Of Income Tax Act, 1961. 3. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The E-Return Of Income Was Filed On 12.09.2009 Declaring Total Income Of Rs.2,15,41,380/-. Scrutiny Under Section 143(3) Was Completed On 13.12.2011 Determining Total Income Of Rs 2,23,69,210/-. Subsequently

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Ram Tiwari

Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 234BSection 271f

facts and circumstances of case and law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in confirming disallowance of genuine purchases of Rs.1,51,97,687/- as bogus purchase from suspicious parties. 3. On the facts and circumstances of case and law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in confirming levy of interest ... information has been received from the Sales Tax Department, Maharashtra giving names & addresses and other details of certain persons who have provided entries for bogus purchase bills to a large number of tax payers. The information received also contains the details of the beneficiaries of such bogus bills. The name