“bogus purchases”

DisallowancesSection 69CSection 69C9,532 judgments

The decision most relied on for bogus purchases is CIT v. Bholanath Poly Fab. Pvt. Ltd. (355 ITR 290), cited in 712 judgments on BharatTax.

Leading authorities on 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.

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.

CIT v. Simit P. Seth

38 Taxmann.com 385 · 2013 · High Court

278

citing judgments

When an assessee obtains accommodation bills for purchases but the corresponding sales are genuine, the addition to income is limited to the gross profit margin embedded in such purchases. This principle acknowledges that the underlying sales were real, but profit was suppressed through bogus invoices.

CIT v. Vijay M. Mistry Construction Ltd.

355 ITR 498 · 2013 · High Court

252

citing judgments

In cases of alleged bogus or hawala purchases where the existence of transactions is not entirely denied, only the profit element embedded in such purchases, and not the entire purchase price, can be added to the assessee's income. The focus is on determining a reasonable profit percentage for such additions.

Judgments citing bogus purchases

Suresh L. Satyani, Mumbai vs. ITO 23(3)(4), Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee in ITA No

ITA 3452/MUM/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Apr 2017AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad & Shri Ramit Kochar

For Appellant: Shri Biren GabhawalaFor Respondent: Shri B.S. Bist, DR

Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

issue of notice u/s 148 of the Act dated 26th March, 2014 on the basis of information that the assessee had indulged in showing bogus purchases by taking accommodation/fictitious bills from certain entities from whom the assessee has not purchased any material. The assessee in response to notice ... Mumbai. The learned CIT(A) observed that said margin is based on figure of total sales, net profit and quantum of bogus purchase for that assessment year but as per learned CIT(A), one has to look at profit margin of various years to arrive at decision and average margin

Krishma Conchem Products P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT 6(2), Mumbai

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

ITA 2742/MUM/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Apr 2017AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri D.T.Garasia, Jm & Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am

For Appellant: Shri Devendra Jain

Section 145(3)Section 68

No.1 is against the confirmation of addition of Rs.9,36,000/- by the ld CIT(A) as made by the AO on account of bogus purchases from M/s Sumukh Corporation. The issue raised in ground No.3 is against the confirmation of application of GP rate 2 at the rate ... alleged bogus purchases which worked out to Rs.18,720/-. Both these grounds are being adjudicated together. 3. Facts of the case in brief are that during the course of assessment proceedings, on random checking of the books of accounts, it was observed that the assessee had purchased goods from

DCIT Cen Cir 8(4), Mumbai vs. Offbeat Developers P.Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 3723/MUM/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Apr 2017AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Raoफनाभ/ Dcit-Cc-8(4), M/S. Offbeat Developers Pvt 6Th Floor, R.No. 658, Ltd., Vs. Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road, Phoenix Mills Premises 462, Mumbai – 400 020. Senapati Bapat Marg, Lower Parel, Mumbai – 400 013. स्थामी रेखा सं./ Pan : Aaaco5140L (अऩीराथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्मथी / Respondent) अऩीराथी की ओय से / Appellant By : Mrs. Beena Santosh, Dr प्रत्मथी की ओय से/ Respondent By : Ms. Shloka Shah सुनवाई की तायीख / Date Of Hearing : 24.04.2017 घोषणा की तायीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 24.04.2017 आदेश / O R D E R Per D. Karunakara Rao, Am: This Is The Appeal By The Revenue Against The Order Of The Cit(A)Dated 29.2.2016 For The Ay 2009-10. In The Grounds, Revenue Raised The Issue Relating To The Relief Granted By The Cit(A) On Account Of The Notional Interest & The Commission Payments Incurred By The Assessee In Connection With The Bogus Purchases Offered By The Assessee During The Survey Proceedings. 2. Narrating The Facts, Ld Counsels For The Assessee & The Revenue Submitted That There Was Survey Action On 5.7.12 On The Assessee & Discovered The Fact Of Suspicious Purchase Of Material From The Suppliers. Assessee Offered The Same To The Revenue & There Is No Issue Relating To The Bogus Purchases Amounting Rs 5.91 Cr From 4 Suppliers. In The Re-Assessment U/S 147 R W S 143(3) Of The Act, The Ao Made Addition On Accounts Of The Interest Expenditure Relatable To The Said Investment In The Said Purchases & Also The Estimated Commission Expenditure Of Rs 11,81,832/- 2% Of The Said Rs 5.51 Cr Relating To The Same. The Cit(A) Granted Relief In This Regard. Aggrieved With The Above, The Revenue Is In Appeal Before The Tribunal With The Grounds Relating To The Said Commission & Interest.

For Appellant: Mrs. Beena Santosh, DRFor Respondent: Ms. Shloka Shah

Section 147

relief granted by the CIT(A) on account of the notional interest and the Commission payments incurred by the assessee in connection with the bogus purchases offered by the assessee during the survey proceedings. 2. Narrating the facts, Ld Counsels for the assessee and the revenue submitted that there ... fact of suspicious purchase of material from the suppliers. Assessee offered the same to the revenue and there is no issue relating to the bogus purchases amounting Rs 5.91 cr from 4 suppliers. In the re-assessment u/s 147 r w s 143(3) of the Act, the AO made

Asst CIT 8(1)(2), Mumbai vs. Safex Fire Services Ltd, Mumbai

In the result all the appeals of the revenue as well as cross objections of the assessee are dismissed

ITA 3593/MUM/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Apr 2017AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad & Shri N.K.Pradhan

For Appellant: Shri Chetan KariaFor Respondent: Shri BS Bist

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 148

same may be followed. 5. We have heard the rival submissions, perused the orders of the authorities below. The additions in these cases towards bogus purchases have been solely made based on the statements said to have been recorded by the sales tax authorities during investigation of the dealers ... income. At page 7, the A.O. has mentioned the reason for declining the purchases according to him information was received from DGIT (Inv.) regarding bogus purchases. The A.O. also observed that these suppliers are hawala operators and have only provided accommodation entries. The stock statement and stock register so prepared

Asst CIT 8(1)(2), Mumbai vs. Safex Fire Services Ltd, Mumbai

In the result all the appeals of the revenue as well as cross objections of the assessee are dismissed

ITA 3592/MUM/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Apr 2017AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad & Shri N.K.Pradhan

For Appellant: Shri Chetan KariaFor Respondent: Shri BS Bist

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 148

Asst CIT 8(1)(2), Mumbai vs. Safex Fire Services Ltd, Mumbai

In the result all the appeals of the revenue as well as cross objections of the assessee are dismissed

ITA 3591/MUM/2016[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Apr 2017AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad & Shri N.K.Pradhan

For Appellant: Shri Chetan KariaFor Respondent: Shri BS Bist

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 148

Varun Jewels Pvt.Ltd., Mumbai vs. Asstt.CIT Central Circle - 34, Mumbai

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

ITA 3421/MUM/2014[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Apr 2017AY 2007-08

Bench: S/Shri B.R. Baskaran (Am) & Sandeep Gosain (Jm)

Section 132Section 132(4)Section 133ASection 153A

heard learned Departmental Representative and perused the record. The assessee is challenging the addition of ` 155.34 lakhs and ` 19.11 lakhs relating to bogus purchases confirmed by the learned CIT(A) respectively for A.Y. 2007-08 & 2008-09. 4. The assessee company is a subsidiary of M/s. Varun Industries Limited ... assessee for A.Y. 2007-08 and ` 0.54 crores in A.Y. 2008-09. Both disclosures relating to the assessee were in respect of bogus purchases made by it from M/s. Simran Gems and M/s. Mihir Diamond. It is pertinent to note that the Revenue had conducted a survey in the hands

ACIT Cen Cir 34, Mumbai vs. Varun Industries Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, all the appeals of the revenue and the assessee are treated as allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 3854/MUM/2012[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Apr 2017AY 2004-05

Bench: S/Shri B.R. Baskaran (Am) & Sandeep Gosain (Jm)

Section 153A

have heard Ld D.R and perused the record. The issues contested by both the parties relate to addition made on account of bogus purchases. The assessee’s group was subjected to search action on 23.07.2009. The search was consequent to the survey/search operations conducted in the hands of brokers named ... Shri Kiran N Mehta, CMD and Shri Kailash Agarwal, Joint MD. In the sworn statement, they admitted additional income of about 72.16 crores towards bogus purchase bills. Accordingly the assessments under consideration were reopened u/s 153A of the Act and the additions were made

Varun Industries Ltd, Mumbai vs. ACIT Cen Cir 34, Mumbai

In the result, all the appeals of the revenue and the assessee are treated as allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2779/MUM/2012[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Apr 2017AY 2008-09

Bench: S/Shri B.R. Baskaran (Am) & Sandeep Gosain (Jm)

Section 153A

M/S Stainless International (P) Ltd., Kolkata vs. Ld. I.T.O. Ward 5(1), Kolkata

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

ITA 2085/KOL/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata21 Apr 2017AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri S.S.Viswanethra Ravi, Jm & Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.2085/Kol/2016 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year :2010-2011) M/S Stainless International Vs. I.T.O. Ward 5(1) Kolkata, (P) Ltd. 5A, N.C. Dutta P-7, Chowringhee Square, Sarani, Ground Floor, Kolkata-700001 Kolkata-700001 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aamcs5299N .. (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) राज"व क" ओर से /Revenue By : Anitabh Bhattacharya, Addl.Cit-Dr "नधा"रती क" ओर से /Assessee By : Gaurav Mathur, Adv. सुनवाई क" तार"ख / Date Of Hearing : 19/04/2017 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement 21/04/2017 आदेश / O R D E R Per Dr. Arjun Lal Saini, Am The Captioned Appeal Filed By The Assessee, Pertaining To The Assessment Year 2010-2011, Is Directed Against The Order Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-2, Kolkata, In Appeal No.170/Cit(A)-2/15-16, Dated 18.08.2016, Which In Turn Arises Out Of An Order Passed By The Assessing Officer U/S.147/143(3) Of The Income Tax Act 1961, (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’), Dated 29.03.2015. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Qua The Assessee Are That The Assessee Is A Private Limited Company & Has Submitted Its Return Of Income On 30.09.2010 Disclosing Total Income Of Rs.2,62,872/-. The Return Of Income Of The Assessee Was Processed U/S 143(1) Of The Act On 16.04.2011. Subsequently, It Has Been Brought To The Notice Of The Assessing Officer That The Assessee Company Had Made Bogus Purchases From 1) Bhagyalaxmi Steel Industries 2) Jineshawar Trading Company 3) Kushal

For Appellant: Gaurav Mathur, AdvFor Respondent: Anitabh Bhattacharya, Addl.CIT-DR

Section 143(1)Section 147Section 148Section 271(1)Section 69C

Subsequently, it has been brought to the notice of the Assessing Officer that the assessee company had made bogus purchases from 1) Bhagyalaxmi Steel Industries 2) Jineshawar trading company 3) Kushal 2 M/s Stainless International Pvt.Ltd. Steel Corporation of Rs.25,31,416/-, Rs.3,67,851/- & Rs.8,081/- respectively aggregating ... Assessing officer completed the assessment U/s 147/ 143(3) of the Act by making the disallowance of Rs. 29,07,348/- on account of bogus purchase. 3. Dissatisfied with the order of the Assessing Officer, the assessee filed an appeal before the ld CIT(A) who has passed

DCIT 13(3)(1), Mumbai vs. Royal Palms (India )P. Ltd, Mumbai

ITA 3836/MUM/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Apr 2017AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri D.T.Garasia () & Shri Ashwani Taneja ()

Section 133(6)

case, and in Law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in confirming the addition of Rs.92,10,464/- worked out @ 12.5% on alleged bogus purchase of Rs.7,36,83,715/-. 2. The learned CIT(A) failed to appreciate the fact that: a) The assessee submitted the address as available with ... without giving reasons for rebutting the evidences. 3.Thus the appellant therefore prays that the additions of Rs.92,10,464/-worked out @ 12.5% on alleged bogus purchase of Rs.7,36,83,715/- may please be deleted Without prejudice to the above 1.On the facts and the circumstances of the case

ITO 20(2)(2), Mumbai vs. Mohammedi Z. Kanchwala, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 4474/MUM/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Apr 2017AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri D.T. Garasia & Shri N.K. Pradhanassessment Year: 2011-12

For Appellant: Shri Rajesh B. Gupta, A.RFor Respondent: Shri M.C. Omi Ningshen, D.R

Section 133(6)

circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. Pr.CIT(A) has erred in finding that corresponding sales shown out of material involved in bogus purchases without mentioning how this and with what evidence before him such flinging was arrived at. If such evidence was given (as corresponding sale ... Department has also made an investigation and they have also declared 2000 persons on website of the Sales Tax Department that they were issuing bogus purchasing bills showing the sales of ferrous and non-ferrous metal products, chemicals etc. Therefore, AO tried to verify the books of accounts and payment

Mohammedi. Z Kanchwala, Mumbai vs. ITO WD 20(2)(2), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 3966/MUM/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Apr 2017AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri D.T. Garasia & Shri N.K. Pradhanassessment Year: 2011-12

For Appellant: Shri Rajesh B. Gupta, A.RFor Respondent: Shri M.C. Omi Ningshen, D.R

Section 133(6)

DCIT 15(3)(2), Mumbai vs. Sterling Electro Enterparises P.Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the Revenue and the CO of the assessee are decided protanto

ITA 1506/MUM/2015[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Apr 2017AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao & Shri Ram Lal Negidcit-15(3)(2), फनाभ/ Sterling Electro Enterprises R.No. 451, 4Th Floor, Aayakar Pvt Ltd., Vs. 101-106, Exim Link 1 St Floor, Bhavan, M.K. Road, Mumbai-20. Mulund Goregaon Road, Near Nahur Railway Station, Bhandup (W), Mumbai-78. स्थामी रेखा सं./ Pan : Aabcs6528H (अऩीराथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्मथी / Respondent) C.O. No.175/M/2016 (Arising Out Of Ita No.1506/M/2015) (Ay 2009-2010) Sterling Electro Enterprises Pvt फनाभ/ Dcit-15(3)(2), R.No. 451, 4Th Floor, Aayakar Ltd., Vs. 101-106, Exim Link 1 St Floor, Bhavan, M.K. Road, Mumbai- Mulund Goregaon Road, 20. Near Nahur Railway Station, Bhandup (W), Mumbai-78. स्थामी रेखा सं./ Pan : Aabcs6528H (अऩीराथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्मथी / Respondent) अऩीराथी की ओय से / Assessee By : Shri Devendra Jain प्रत्मथी की ओय से/ Revenue By : Dr. A.K. Nayak, Dr

For Appellant: Shri Devendra JainFor Respondent: Dr. A.K. Nayak, DR

Section 250Section 40A(3)Section 69C

facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld CIT (A) erred in directing the AO not to treat the bogus purchases as unexplained expenditure u/s 69C of the Act. The Ld CIT (A) has further erred in not appreciating the fact that the said seller ... case and in law, the Ld CIT (A) has erred in arbitrarily estimating the profit at the rate of 15% of the alleged bogus purchases by wrongly relying on the decision of the Gujarat High Court in the case of Sanjay Oilcake Industries vs. CIT (316 ITR 274) disregarding

ITO 25(1)(2), Mumbai vs. Shree Krishna Chaitanya Enterprises, Mumbai

The appeal of the Revenue is partly allowed

ITA 3321/MUM/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Apr 2017AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao & Shri Ram Lal Negiफनाभ/ Income Tax Officer-25(1)(2), M/S. Shree Krishna Chaitanya R.No.204, C-11, Pratyaksh Kar Enterprises, Vs. Bhavan, Bandra Kurla Complex, 102, A-Wing, Radha Vilas, Bandra (E), Mumbai-400051. Apartment, Kandarpada, Dahisar (W), Mumbai – 68. स्थामी रेखा सं./ Pan : Abeps7379H (अऩीराथी /Appellant) (प्रत्मथी / Respondent) ..

For Appellant: Shri S.K. Saikia, CIT-DRFor Respondent: Dr. K. Shivram & Mr. Aditya

Section 133ASection 69CSection 80I

ground 1); 2. Correctness of the deletion of addition u/s 69C of the Act in respect of the addition on account of the bogus purchases from the suppliers whose names appear in the Website of the Sales Tax Department, Maharashtra (ground 3 to 6); and 3. Correctness of the claim ... Further also, the AO made another addition of Rs 29,26,940/- being the unexplained expenditure u/s 69C of the Act by way of „bogus purchases‟. Facts include that the assessee recorded the purchases from the suppliers namely Vinayak Trading Co, Chetan Enterprises. Undisputedly, these parties are pronounced

Neelkamal Realtors and Erectors India P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT 5(2), Mumbai

In the result appeal filed by assessee is partly allowed and the appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed

ITA 2589/MUM/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Apr 2017AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu & Shri Pawan Singhm/S Neelkamal Realtors & Dcit -5(1), Erectors India Pvt. Ltd., Aayakar Bhavan, Ground Floor, 265-E, Mumbai-400020 Vs. Bellasis Road, Mumbai Central, Mumbai-400008 Pan: Aabcn9254D (Appellant) (Respondent) Dcit -5(1), M/S Neelkamal Realtors & Aayakar Bhavan, Erectors India Pvt. Ltd., Ground Mumbai-400020 Vs. Floor, 265-E, Bellasis Road, Mimbai Central, Mumbai-400008 Pan: Aabcn9254D (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri B.V. Jhaveri (AR)For Respondent: Shri Suman Kumar (DR)

Section 143(3)Section 254(1)

account of variations of rates in sale of flats and disallowed Rs. 54,76,467/- on account of bogus purchases. On appeal before the ld. CIT(A), the addition on account of variation of rate in sale of flats was deleted and the disallowance on account of bogus purchases ... aggrieved by the order of ld. CIT(A), the assessee has filed the appeal for challenging the sustaining the partial disallowance on account of bogus purchases. Similarly, the Revenue has challenged the partial deletion of disallowance on account of bogus purchases and deleting the addition

Vishal Ram Khakal, Thane vs. Asst CIT Cir 3, Thane

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed in part

ITA 6562/MUM/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 Apr 2017AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri R.C.Sharma, Am

Section 143(3)

order passed u/s.143(3) r.w.s.147 of the IT Act. 2. Grievance of assessee in both the years pertains to upholding disallowance of alleged bogus purchases. 3. I have gone through the orders of the authorities below and found that on the basis of information received from Sales Tax Department that

Jayesh A Shah, Thane vs. ITO WD 4(2), Thane

In the result, all the three appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 6288/MUM/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 Apr 2017AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao

For Appellant: Shri Bhupendra ShahFor Respondent: Mrs. Beena Santosh, DR

Section 131Section 133(6)Section 148Section 69C

same, being adhoc 100% of the said purchases.” 3. At the outset, Ld Counsel for the assessee submitted that this is a case of „bogus purchases‟ where the Assessing Officer invoked the provisions of section 69C of the Act and made entire addition of such bogus purchases. Matter travelled ... three appeals, ld Counsel for the assessee submitted that the disallowance may be restricted to the GP addition of the assessee on the said bogus purchases. Referring to VAT related payments, Ld Counsel for the assessee submitted that the assessee has paid the VAT allowing with the penalty in separate

ITO WD 1(5), Kalyan vs. Gopal Ramshish Tripathi, Bhiwandi

In the result, the appeal for all three years, are PARTLY

ITA 6559/MUM/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Apr 2017AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri R.C.Sharma, Am

Section 143(3)Section 145(3)Section 148Section 69C

passed u/s.143(3) r.w.s. 147 of the IT Act. 2. Common grievance of revenue and assessee both pertains to addition made on account of bogus purchases. 3. Nobody appeared on behalf of assessee inspite of service of notices, Bench, therefore decided to dispose the appeal after hearing learned ... considering the material placed on record. Facts in brief are that on the basis of information from Sales Tax Department regarding persons providing bogus purchase bills, the AO reopened the assessment by issue of notices u/s.148. In the assessment so framed, AO added entire amount of bogus purchases as assessee

SHI vs. Hankar Agarwal, Mumbai

Appeal stands allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 5131/MUM/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Apr 2017AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri D.T. Garasia, Jm & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.5131/Mum/2016 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2011-2012)

For Appellant: Shri M.C. Omi Ningshen, Ld. DR

Section 143(3)

order of Ld. Commissioner of Income tax (Appeals)-37 [CIT(A)], Mumbai dated 08/03/2016 qua addition of Rs.25,39,478/- with respect to bogus purchases. 2. Briefly stated, the assessee, being resident individual, was subjected to an assessment u/s 143(3) vide Assessing Officer [AO] order dated 28/03/2014 wherein