← All Phrases

“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

Prithviraj G. Jain, Mumbai vs. ITO 19(2)(5), Mumbai

In the result, appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 1805/MUM/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 Nov 2017AY 2010-11

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

For Appellant: Shri Rajiv KhandelwalFor Respondent: Shri M.V. Rajguru
Section 133(6)Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 145(3)Section 147

Years 2010-11 and 2011-12 are concerned though the action of the Assessing Officer in estimating the Gross Profit at 12.5% of alleged bogus purchases are confirmed he 5 ITA.No.911/MUM/2016 ITA.No.1805 & 3057/MUM/2017 Prithviraj G.Jain directed Assessing Officer to deduct the gross profit already declared by the assessee ... Assessment Years. Learned Counsel for the assessee further submits that the Assessing Officer having accepted the sales, the entire purchases cannot be treated as bogus purchases. He also Placed reliance on the following decisions in its support: - 6 ITA.No.911/MUM/2016 ITA.No.1805 & 3057/MUM/2017 Prithviraj G.Jain (i) CIT v. Simit

Prithviraj G. Jain, Mumbai vs. ITO 19(2)(5), Mumbai

In the result, appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 911/MUM/2016[2009-10]Status: HeardITAT Mumbai03 Nov 2017AY 2009-10

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

For Appellant: Shri Rajiv KhandelwalFor Respondent: Shri M.V. Rajguru
Section 133(6)Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 145(3)Section 147

Years 2010-11 and 2011-12 are concerned though the action of the Assessing Officer in estimating the Gross Profit at 12.5% of alleged bogus purchases are confirmed he 5 ITA.No.911/MUM/2016 ITA.No.1805 & 3057/MUM/2017 Prithviraj G.Jain directed Assessing Officer to deduct the gross profit already declared by the assessee ... Assessment Years. Learned Counsel for the assessee further submits that the Assessing Officer having accepted the sales, the entire purchases cannot be treated as bogus purchases. He also Placed reliance on the following decisions in its support: - 6 ITA.No.911/MUM/2016 ITA.No.1805 & 3057/MUM/2017 Prithviraj G.Jain (i) CIT v. Simit

ACIT 13(2)(1), Mumbai vs. Satyanis the Jewellery Store P.Ltd, Mumbai

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

ITA 4950/MUM/2016[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 Nov 2017AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Jm & Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am आमकय अऩीर सं./ I.T.A. No.4950/Mum/2016 (निर्ाारण वषा / Assessment Year :2013-14) Asstt.Commissioner Of Income M/S Satyanis The Jewellery Tax-Circle 13(2)(1), Store Pvt Ltd., Room No.164A, 1St Floor, Savanna Court, Ground Floor, फनाभ/ Aayakar Bhavan, Plot No.190, Turner Road, M K Road, Next To Time Avenue / Vs. Mumbai-400020 Union Bank Of India, Bandra (W), Mumbai-400050 (अऩीराथी /Appellant) (प्रत्मथी / Respondent) Pan: Aalcs81771J अऩीराथी की ओय से / Revenue By : Shri Purishottam Kumar प्रत्मथी की ओय से/Assessee By : Shri Birin Gabhewala

For Appellant: Shri Birin GabhewalaFor Respondent: Shri Purishottam Kumar
Section 133(6)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)

assessment year 2013-14, wherein the revenue has challenged the order of ld. CIT(A) restricting the addition to 1% only of the bogus purchases as 2 I.T.A. No.4950/M/2016 against the 12.5% as made by the AO and also that the ld.CIT(A) was not justified by relying ... before the FAA, 3 I.T.A. No.4950/M/2016 who in turn partly allowed the appeal of the assessee sustaining the addition at 1% of the total bogus purchases by relying on the instruction No.2 of 2008 dated 22.2.2008. Aggrieved by the above direction of the ld.CIT(A), the revenue is in appeal

Orra Fine Jewellery Pvt. Ltd. (Formerly Known As M/S. Inter Gold Gems Pvt. Ltd.), Mumbai vs. Principal CIT Cent. Cir. 46, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal is allowed

ITA 2328/MUM/2016[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 Nov 2017AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh () & Shri N.K. Pradhan () Assessment Year: 2008-09

For Appellant: Mr. Nitesh Joshi, ARFor Respondent: Mr. H.N. Singh, DR
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 263

notice dated 02.03.2016. The points raised by the PCIT were (i) on perusal of records, it is seen that the assessee company had made bogus purchases to the extent of Rs.60,56,006/- by way of accommodation entries from the concerns controlled and operated by Shri Rajendra Jain, Shri Sanjay

Amit Agarwal, Navi Mumbai vs. ITO RG 22(3)(1), Navi Mumbai

In the result, assessee’s appeal is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 5867/MUM/2015[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 Nov 2017AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu & Shri Saktijit Dey

For Appellant: Shri Manish V. ShahFor Respondent: Shri Rajesh Kumar Yadav
Section 133(6)Section 143(1)Section 147

time of hearing the only submission made by the learned A.R. is to the effect that out of the amount added towards bogus purchases, there are purchases returned back by the assessee. Therefore, the G.P. rate adopted by the Commssioner (Appeals) should be applied to net purchases. After hearing ... submissions of the parties we are of the view that the issue relating to the addition made on account of bogus purchases requires to be remitted back to the file of the Assessing Officer for verifying the aforesaid claim of the assessee. Let the Assessing Officer verify assessee’s claim

Asst CIT Cir 3, Thane vs. Sagar Sai Enterprises, Dombivali

ITA 5674/MUM/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 Nov 2017AY 2011-12
For Appellant: Shri Sanjiv Brahme & Shri Jayant BhattFor Respondent: Shri V. Justin-DR
Section 143(3)Section 253Section 254(1)Section 40

order for earlier year we decide First Ground of appeal against the AO. 3.Second Ground of appeal is about not confirming addition of bogus purchases amounting to Rs.28.56 lakhs. During the course of assessment proceedings the AO noticed that the appellant had shown purchases amounting

DCIT 28(3), Navi Mumbai vs. Sunil Khanna, Navi Mumbai

In the result, the Revenue’s appeal and the assessee’s cross objection stands dismissed

ITA 276/MUM/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 Nov 2017AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Rajendra, Am & Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 276/Mum/2015 (धििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2011-12) Dy. Cit-28(3), Sunil H. Khanna, बिाम/ 3Rd Floor Tower No. 6, Vashi Railway 311, A-Wing, Arneja Corner, Station Complex, Vashi, Sector-17, Vashi, Vs. Navi Mumbai-400 703 Navi Mumbai-400 703 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. Afhpk 2599 E (Revenue) : (Assessee)

For Appellant: Shri Prakash PanditFor Respondent: Shri v. Justin
Section 143(1)

after considering the case of both the parties had restricted the addition @ 10% of the bogus purchase vide order dated 07.10.2014. 6. Aggrieved by the order of ld. CIT(A), the Revenue has preferred the present appeal before us on the ground mentioned here-in-below: 3 ITA No. 276/M/15 ... erred in deleting the addition made by the A.O. of Rs.3,82,45,715/- of account of bogus purchases. 2. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the ld. CIT(A) erred in directing the A.O. to disallow 10% of the alleged bogus purchases

Aarey Drugs and Pharmaceuticals Ltd, Mumbai vs. ACIT Cen Cir 13, Mumbai

In the result, assessee’s appeal is dismissed

ITA 6815/MUM/2014[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 Nov 2017AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu & Shri Saktijit Deym/S. Aarey Drugs & Pharmaceuticals Ltd. 107. Sahakar Bhavan 340/48, Narsi Natha Street ……………. Appellant Mumbai 400009 Pan Aaaca5253A V/S Acit, Central Circle – 13 Aayakar Bhavar, M.K. Road ……………. Respondent Mumbai 400020 Appellant By : None Respondent By : Shri Rajesh Kumar Yadav

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Rajesh Kumar Yadav
Section 133A

certain parties in different assessment years were not genuine. Accordingly, he worked out the addition to be made on peak basis on account of bogus purchases in different assessment years aggregating to `8,27,72,620/–. Since, the total addition to be made on peak basis was apportioned ... assessment years 2007–08 and 2008–09, no further addition on account of bogus purchase was made in the impugned assessment year. However, the Assessing Officer found that depreciation claimed by the assessee on additions made to fixed assets during the year includes addition to plant and machinery which forms

The ACIT, Central Circle-1(1), Ahmedabad vs. M/S. Deep Cotton Industries, Patan

In the result, respective appeals of both Revenue and Assessee are dismissed

ITA 948/AHD/2012[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad02 Nov 2017AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri S.S. Godara & Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia1. आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.948/Ahd/2012 2. आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.1460/Ahd/2012 ("नधा"रण वष" / Ay : 2008-09) 1.Acit 1. Deep Cotton बनाम/ Central Cirle-1(1) Industries Vs. Ahmedabad Prop.Of Nitesh Gunvantilal Thakkar Jaska Road, Harji, Dist.Patan -384 240 2. The Acit 2. M/S.Deep Cotton Industries Central Circle-1(1) Prop.Of Nitesh Gunvantlal Ahmedabad Thakkar Dist.Patan-384 240 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Adwpt 3924 H .. (अपीलाथ" /Appellants) (""यथ" / Respondents) Revenue By : Shri K.Madhusudan, Sr.Dr Assessee By : Shri M.J. Shah, Ar

For Appellant: Shri M.J. Shah, ARFor Respondent: Shri K.Madhusudan, Sr.DR
Section 271(1)(c)

facts in deleting the addition of Rs.1,57,12,258/- out of total addition of Rs.2,09,49,678/- made on account of bogus purchases. 2) On facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the CIT(A) ought to have upheld the entire addition of Rs.2 ... made on account of bogus purchases. Assessee’s Appeal in ITA No.1460/Ahd/2012 – AY 2008-09 3. Likewise, grounds of appeal raised by the assessee is also reproduced hereunder: 1. The Assessing Officer has erred in law as well as on facts by making addition amounting to Rs.2

Shri Nitesh G.Thakkar, Patan vs. The ACIT., Cent.Circle-1(1), Ahmedabad

In the result, respective appeals of both Revenue and Assessee are dismissed

ITA 1460/AHD/2012[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad02 Nov 2017AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri S.S. Godara & Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia1. आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.948/Ahd/2012 2. आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.1460/Ahd/2012 ("नधा"रण वष" / Ay : 2008-09) 1.Acit 1. Deep Cotton बनाम/ Central Cirle-1(1) Industries Vs. Ahmedabad Prop.Of Nitesh Gunvantilal Thakkar Jaska Road, Harji, Dist.Patan -384 240 2. The Acit 2. M/S.Deep Cotton Industries Central Circle-1(1) Prop.Of Nitesh Gunvantlal Ahmedabad Thakkar Dist.Patan-384 240 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Adwpt 3924 H .. (अपीलाथ" /Appellants) (""यथ" / Respondents) Revenue By : Shri K.Madhusudan, Sr.Dr Assessee By : Shri M.J. Shah, Ar

For Appellant: Shri M.J. Shah, ARFor Respondent: Shri K.Madhusudan, Sr.DR
Section 271(1)(c)

facts in deleting the addition of Rs.1,57,12,258/- out of total addition of Rs.2,09,49,678/- made on account of bogus purchases. 2) On facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the CIT(A) ought to have upheld the entire addition of Rs.2 ... made on account of bogus purchases. Assessee’s Appeal in ITA No.1460/Ahd/2012 – AY 2008-09 3. Likewise, grounds of appeal raised by the assessee is also reproduced hereunder: 1. The Assessing Officer has erred in law as well as on facts by making addition amounting to Rs.2

Premji Manshi Gala, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 3(2), Mumbai

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

ITA 5521/MUM/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai02 Nov 2017AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran (Am)

Section 148

years 2009-10 and 2010-11. The assessee is aggrieved by the decision of Ld CIT(A) in partially/fully confirming the addition relating to bogus purchases. 2. The facts relating to the case are discussed in brief. The assessee is engaged in the business of trading in stationery items

Shree Chemtech Marketing P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. ITO 15(3)(3), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 5430/MUM/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai02 Nov 2017AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran (Am) I.T.A. No. 5430/Mum/2017 (Assessment Year 2011-12)

Section 148

relates to the assessment year 2011-12. The assessee is aggrieved by the decision of Ld CIT(A) in confirming the addition relating to bogus purchases. The assessee has also challenged the validity of reopening of assessment. 2. The facts relating to the case are discussed in brief. The assessee

Nikhil Kishore Gandhi, Mumbai vs. ACIT 32(2)(4), Mumbai

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

ITA 5372/MUM/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai02 Nov 2017AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran (Am)

Mumbai and it relates to A.Y. 2010-11. The assessee is aggrieved by the decision of CIT(A) in confirming the addition related to bogus purchases made by the AO. 2. I heard the parties and perused the record. The assessee is engaged in the business of trading in iron ... 315/Mum/2016 relating to A.Y. 2009-10 and the Tribunal, vide its order dated 4.8.2017, restricted the addition to 5% of the value of bogus purchases. Ld AR submitted that the facts and circumstances of the case are identical in this year also and accordingly prayed that the addition should

Naitik Gems, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer-32(2)(4), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

ITA 4760/MUM/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai02 Nov 2017AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran (Am)

Section 148

assessee has filed this appeal challenging the order dated 26-05- 2017 passed by Ld CIT(A) partially confirming the addition relating to bogus purchases made in assessment year 2009-10. 2. I heard the parties and perused the record. The assessee is a partnership firm engaged in the business ... made by the assessee from grey market and bills were obtained from Rajendra Jain group concern. It has been noticed that accommodation entries of bogus purchases are issued through a complex web of transactions including banks and angarias. 3 M/s. Naitik Gems 9.2 In such scenario, where, on one hand

Hardik Jitendra Shah, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer-32(1)(5), Mumbai

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

ITA 4684/MUM/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai02 Nov 2017AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran (Am) I.T.A. No. 4684/Mum/2017 (Assessment Year 2009-10)

Section 148

assessment year 2009-10. The assessee is aggrieved by the decision of Ld CIT(A) in partially confirming the addition relating to bogus purchases. The assessee is also challenging the validity of reopening of assessment. 2. The facts relating to the case are discussed in brief. The assessee is engaged

Sun Star Advertinsing P.Ltd, Thane vs. ACIT Cir 3, Thane

In the result, assessee’s appeal is partly allowed

ITA 3598/MUM/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai02 Nov 2017AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri D.T. Garasiaassessment Year: 2010-11 M/S. Sun N Star Advertising Acit- Circle-3, Pvt. Ltd., Ashar It Park, 6Th Floor, Wagle Estate, D-303, Anant Laxmi Chamber, Vs. Gokhale Road, Road No.16-Z, Naupada, Thane – 406 602 Thane (W)-400 604 Pan: Aaics8518C (Appellant) (Respondent) Present For: Assessee By : Shri Jayant K. Bhatt, A.R. Revenue By : Smt. N. Hemalatha, D.R. Date Of Hearing : 08.08.2017 Date Of Pronouncement : 02.11.2017 O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri Jayant K. Bhatt, A.RFor Respondent: Smt. N. Hemalatha, D.R
Section 133(6)Section 250Section 69C

advertising through display, hoardings and electronic media. During the year the Assessing Officer (hereinafter referred to as the AO) found that assessee had made bogus purchases from following parties: 2 M/s. Sun N Star Advertising Pvt. Ltd. Sr. Name of the party Amount of No. Purchase (Rs) 1. M/s. Asian ... above parties for verification. There was no compliance of notice under section 133(6). Therefore, the AO has made the addition on account of bogus purchases of Rs.31,15,407/-. 4. Matter carried to the Ld. CIT(A) and the Ld. CIT(A) has dismissed the claim by observing

ACIT 1(3)(1), Mumbai vs. Sovika Chemicals Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai

The appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 5096/MUM/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai02 Nov 2017AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Rajesh Kumarassessment Year: 2012-13 Acit-1(3)(1), M/S Sovika Chemicals Pvt. Room No.540, 5Th Floor, Ltd. बनाम/ Aayakar Bhavan, B/2, Parekh Mahal, 80, Vs. M.K. Road, Veer Nariman Road, Mumbai-400020 Churchgate, Mumbai-400020 (राज"व /Revenue) ("नधा"रती /Assessee) Pan. No.Aaacs5390N

Section 69C

dated 22/02/2011, observed/held as under:- “The question raised in this appeal is, whether the Tribunal was justified in deleting the addition on account of bogus purchases allegedly made by the assessee from M/s. Thakkar Agro Industrial Chem Supplies P. Ltd. According to the revenue, the Director of M/s. Thakkar Agro ... Revenue. However, from the order of the Tribunal dated April 30, 2010, we find that the Tribunal has deleted the additions on account of bogus purchases not only on the basis of stock statement, i.e., reconciliation statement but also in view of the other facts. The Tribunal records that

DCIT Cir. 13(1)(2), Mumbai vs. P-Cube Construction Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai

The appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 5019/MUM/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai02 Nov 2017AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Rajesh Kumarassessment Year: 2009-10 Dcit, M/S P-Cube Construction Circle-13(1)(2), Private Ltd. बनाम/ Room No.218, 02Nd Floor, 1/A/101, Umiya Nagar, Vs. Aayakar Bhavan, M. K. Road, Visheshwar Nagar Road, Mumbai-400020 Off Aarey Road, Goregaon (East), Mumbai-400054 (राज"व /Revenue) ("नधा"रती /Assessee) Pan. No.Aadcp9320N

Section 69C

challenging the impugned order dated 23/05/2016 of the Ld. First Appellate Authority, Mumbai, restricting the addition of Rs.67,92,560/- made on account of bogus purchases to Rs.8,49,070/- at the rate of 12.5% of the bogus purchases without appreciating the fact and consequent, deleting the addition. 2. During ... order. 2.1 We have considered the rival submissions and perused the material available on record. So far as, deleting the addition on account of bogus purchases made from hawala dealers as unexplained expenses u/s 69C of the Act is concerned, if the observation made in the assessment order, leading

DCIT CC 6(4), Mumbai vs. J Kumar Infrapojects Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed and the appeals of the revenue are dismissed

ITA 4231/MUM/2016[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai02 Nov 2017AY 2008-09

Bench: S/Shri B.R. Baskaran (Am) & Amarjit Singh (Jm)

Section 133ASection 143(3)

these appeals are being disposed of by this common order, for the sake of convenience. 2. In all these years, the addition relating to bogus purchases have been confirmed by Ld CIT(A) partially. Hence both the parties are in appeal, i.e., the revenue is challenging the relief granted ... further submitted that the Hon’ble Supreme Court has confirmed addition of entire amount of bogus purchases in the case of N.K. Proteins (2017-TIOL-23-SC-IT dated January 16, 2017) by dismissing the SLP filed by the assessee. She further submitted that the decision rendered

Pratapram Choudhary, Mumbai vs. ITO WD 19(2)(5), Mumbai

The appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 304/MUM/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai02 Nov 2017AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Rajesh Kumarassessment Year: 2009-10 Pratapram Choudhary, Income Tax Officer, Room No.208, 55-60 Shree Ward-19(2)(5), बनाम/ Swamy Samarth, 02Nd Room No.210, 02Nd Floor, Vs. Kumbharwada, Matru Mandir, Mumbai-400004 Mumbai-400007 ("नधा"रती /Assessee) (राज"व /Revenue) Pan. No.Agspc8984F

Section 271(1)(c)

perused the material available on record. It is noted that (para- 5.2 of the impugned order) the addition made with respect to bogus purchases was confirmed by the Tribunal as the assessee could not establish the genuineness of the purchases 3 Pratapram Choudhary from Chirag Corporation and the amount ... Thus, the bogus nature of claimed purchases of goods remained unsubstantiated. The contents of the claim filed in the return with respect to these bogus purchases also remained unsubstantiated, therefore, we affirm the penalty levied by the Assessing Officer and sustained by the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal). Resultantly