← All Phrases

“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

Gemco International, Jaipur vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 2(1), Jaipur

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee stands partly allowed with no order as to cost

ITA 410/JPR/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur04 Oct 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Vivek Bhargava, CAFor Respondent: Shri Gautam Singh Choudhary,JCIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 153ASection 153C

Appeals) erred in law and on facts in confirming the disallowance of Rs. 2,63,245/- being 25% of alleged non verified and bogus purchase from following two suppliers- 1. M/s AVI Exports Rs. 1,37,278/- 2. M/s. Nazar Impex ... case are that assessment in the case of assessee under section 147 read with section 143(3) was completed by making disallowance of bogus purchases debited in P & L account of Rs. 2,63,245/-. 2.2 Although appeal was filed by the assessee but remained unsuccessful as the Appeal

M/S. Vijay Jewellers, Mumbai vs. Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax -19(3), Mumbai

In the result, all the three appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 4204/MUM/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 Oct 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee & Miss. Padmavathy S.

For Appellant: Shri Hrithik Yadav / Shri DevangFor Respondent: Ms. Rajeshwari Menon SRDR
Section 143(3)Section 145(3)Section 147Section 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

determining the total income at Rs.56,21,190/- in which addition was made of Rs.5,54,989/- being 5% of the bogus purchases of Rs.1,10,99,786/- to the total income of the assessee. Whereas for A.Y. 2012-13, the assessment was completed under section 143(3) read with ... which the purchases from Prime Star of Rs.44,46,600/- and Mayur Exports of Rs.29,91,450/- totaling Rs.74,38,050/- was treated as bogus purchases by rejecting the books of account under section 145(3) of the Act and addition was made of R.5,95,044/- being

M/S. Vijay Jewellers, Mumbai vs. Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax -19(3), Mumbai

In the result, all the three appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 4203/MUM/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 Oct 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee & Miss. Padmavathy S.

For Appellant: Shri Hrithik Yadav / Shri DevangFor Respondent: Ms. Rajeshwari Menon SRDR
Section 143(3)Section 145(3)Section 147Section 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

determining the total income at Rs.56,21,190/- in which addition was made of Rs.5,54,989/- being 5% of the bogus purchases of Rs.1,10,99,786/- to the total income of the assessee. Whereas for A.Y. 2012-13, the assessment was completed under section 143(3) read with ... which the purchases from Prime Star of Rs.44,46,600/- and Mayur Exports of Rs.29,91,450/- totaling Rs.74,38,050/- was treated as bogus purchases by rejecting the books of account under section 145(3) of the Act and addition was made of R.5,95,044/- being

Saket Agarwal, Jaipur vs. ITO Ward 2(3) Jaipur, Jaipur

In the result appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 646/JPR/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur01 Oct 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Ms. Satwika Jhan, AdvFor Respondent: Ms. Alka Gautam (CIT) a
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)Section 41(1)

expenses on purchases on ground that an information was received from sales tax department that assessee was beneficiary of accommodation entries on account of bogus purchases, since Assessing Officer had not disputed corresponding sales transactions, purchases also could not be bogus and, thus, impugned addition made on account of bogus

Prabhati Devi, Dausa vs. ITO Ward Dausa, Dausa

ITA 1031/JPR/2024[2011-12]Status: HeardITAT Jaipur01 Oct 2024AY 2011-12
For Appellant: Shri Sarwan Kumar Gupta, Advocate &For Respondent: Shri Gautam Singh Chaudhary, JCIT D/R
Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 234ASection 250

section 148 seeking to reopen the assessment on ground that on verification of details available on record, it was found that assessee had made bogus purchases and to that extent profit had escaped assessment from tax. The assessee filed its objections to the reopening of assessment. The AO passed

Kandoi Metal Powders Manufactruing Company, Jaipur vs. DCIT, CC-3, Jaipur

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

ITA 122/JPR/2022[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur01 Oct 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Sh. S. L. Poddar (Adv.)For Respondent: Sh. A. S. Nehra (Addl. CIT) a
Section 139Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

assessee was decided by the Bench on 15.09.2022 taking into consideration the judgment of clarity gold rendered by our High Court decided issue of bogus purchase in the case of CIT(Central), Jaipur vs. M/s Clarity Gold (P.) Ltd. (100 CCH 0396 Rajasthan High Court). In that case ... High Court estimated profit of the assessee’s case @ 12% of such bogus purchase. Thereafter, the assessee filed Misc. Application contending that our High Court in that case while estimating the profit also held that in para 6 that “in our consider opinion, taking into account, the industry which

Income Tax Officer, Mumbai Ayakar Bhawan Churchgate vs. Varsha Corporation Limited, Malad (West)

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 348/MUM/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai01 Oct 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal & Shri Gagan Goyalito, R. No. 227, Aayakar Bhavan, M. K. Road, Mumbai Maharashtra - 400 020. ..... Appellant Vs. M/S. Varsha Corporation Ltd. 13, Adarsh Society, Varsha Ramachandra Lane Extn. Malad (West), Mumbai- 400 064. Pan No.Aabcv2293E ..... Respondent

For Appellant: Ms. Rajeshwari Menon, Ld. DRFor Respondent: Shri Mahesh Rajora, Ld.AR
Section 133(6)Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 250

facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in restricting the disallowance to 2% of the bogus purchase made from M/s. Shashwat Jewellery Pvt. Ltd. without appreciating the fact that, Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of NK Proteins Ltd us. DCIT ... facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT (A) erred in limiting the disallowance to 2% of the purportedly bogus purchase from M/s. Shashwat Jewellery Pvt. Ltd. without properly appreciating the fact that the Assessing Officer had conducted exhaustive inquiries, obtained information on M/s. Shashwat Jewellery

ITO 41(3)(1), Mumbai, Bkc Mumbai vs. Harshadray Vrajlal Sanghavi, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 1869/MUM/2024[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai01 Oct 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiya, Hon’Ble & Shri Sunil Kumar Singh, Hon’Ble

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shir Ram Prakash Rastogi, Sr. D/R
Section 143(1)

grievance of the revenue is that the ld. CIT(A) erred in restricting the addition made by the AO in respect of bogus purchases. 3. None appeared on behalf of the assessee in spite of notices. We decided to proceed ex-parte. 4. Briefly stated the facts of the case ... I.T.A. No. 4226/Mum/2024 2 was reopened because the AO came to know that some businessmen had indulged in the acceptance of bogus bills from bogus purchase bills from bogus hawala bills providers. The AO also had the information that Sales Tax Department, Mumbai, carried out detailed enquiries which established that

M/S. Panchmahal Steel Ltd., Baroda vs. The Pr. CIT-1, Vadodara

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for both the assessment years in question

ITA 128/AHD/2021[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad27 Sept 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

For Appellant: Shri Manish J Shah & Shri Rushin Patel, A.RsFor Respondent: Shri R. N. Dsouza, CIT DR
Section 143(3)Section 148Section 154Section 263

that the assessee had claimed Cenvat credit of Rs. 4,37,07,420/-, which was disallowed. The officer identified that the assessee had reported bogus purchases, prompting the reopening of the case with a notice under Section 148 on March 30, 2017. An assessment order issued on December ... resulted in the addition of Rs. 27,53,17,729/- for bogus purchases, which comprised Rs. 25,04,72,276/- for the value of ITA Nos. 127&128/Ahd/2021 Panchmahal Steel Ltd. vs. PCIT Asst.Years –2010-11 & 2011-12 - 3– goods and Rs. 2,48,45,453/- for Cenvat credit claimed

M/S. Panchmahal Steel Ltd., Baroda vs. The Pr. CIT-1, Vadodara

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for both the assessment years in question

ITA 127/AHD/2021[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad27 Sept 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

For Appellant: Shri Manish J Shah & Shri Rushin Patel, A.RsFor Respondent: Shri R. N. Dsouza, CIT DR
Section 143(3)Section 148Section 154Section 263

that the assessee had claimed Cenvat credit of Rs. 4,37,07,420/-, which was disallowed. The officer identified that the assessee had reported bogus purchases, prompting the reopening of the case with a notice under Section 148 on March 30, 2017. An assessment order issued on December ... resulted in the addition of Rs. 27,53,17,729/- for bogus purchases, which comprised Rs. 25,04,72,276/- for the value of ITA Nos. 127&128/Ahd/2021 Panchmahal Steel Ltd. vs. PCIT Asst.Years –2010-11 & 2011-12 - 3– goods and Rs. 2,48,45,453/- for Cenvat credit claimed

ITO-13(1)(1), Mumbai vs. P-Cube Construction Private Limited, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the Rev

ITA 4056/MUM/2024[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Sept 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail () Assessment Year: 2010-11 Ito-13(1)(1), P-Cube Construction Pvt. Ltd., 225, 2Nd Floor, Aaykar Bhavan, 1/A/101, Umiya Nagar Vs. Churchgate, Vishweshwar Nagar Road, Off Mumbai-400020. Aarey Road, Goregaon (E), Mumbai-400063. Pan No. Aadcp 9320 N Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Mr. Kirit SanghviFor Respondent: 24/09/2024
Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)

method for inflating the the revenue by indulging fraudulent method for inflating the the revenue by indulging fraudulent method for inflating the expenses showing bogus purchases to reduce the income and expenses showing bogus purchases to reduce the income and expenses showing bogus purchases to reduce the income ... that where the Ld. CIT(A) has restricted the held that where the Ld. CIT(A) has restricted the addition to 12.5% of the bogus purchases, t o 12.5% of the bogus purchases, the addition sustained he addition sustained being on the estimate basis being on the estimate basis

M/S. Microware Communications, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 34(2)(1), Mumbai

Appeals are dismissed, accordingly

ITA 3619/MUM/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Sept 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiya, Hon’Ble & Shri Sunil Kumar Singh, Hon’Ble

For Appellant: Shri. Sanjay Parikh, CAFor Respondent: Smt. R. M. Brindha, Addl. JCIT
Section 69C

substance of the grievance of the assessee is that the CIT(A) erred in confirming the addition of Rs.8,00,922/- as bogus purchases made by the AO. 3. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the assessee filed its return of income declaring total income at Rs.8 ... assessee stated that on identical situation in A.Y.2010-11 this Tribunal in ITA No.6196/Mum/2014 has restricted the addition to 10% of total alleged bogus purchases therefore, the same view should be followed. The DR strongly supported the findings of the AO but could not bring any decision in favour

Sanjaykumar Hirachand Jain, Mumbai vs. ITO-19(3)(2), Mumbai

Appeals are dismissed, accordingly

ITA 3479/MUM/2024[AY 2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Sept 2024

Bench: Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiya, Hon’Ble & Shri Sunil Kumar Singh, Hon’Ble

For Appellant: Mr. Mahaveer JainFor Respondent: Smt. R. M. Brindha, Addl. JCIT

solitary grievance of the assessee is that the CIT(A) erred in confirming the additions made by the AO in respect of bogus purchases. I.T.A. No. 3479/Mum/2024 2 3. The briefly stated the facts of the case are that on the basis of the information received from the DGIT (Investigation

DCIT-Cen-1.1, Mumbai vs. Rajendra S Karnavat, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1344/MUM/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Sept 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2011-12

For Appellant: Shri Sunil Hirawat, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Mahita Nair, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 147

restricting the addition to 12.5% without considering the evidential value of the statement on oath which clearly indicates payments made under the gurb of bogus purchases & assessee is beneficiary of accommodation entry ?" "The appellant craves leave to add, alter, amend, delete and/or vary any of the above grounds of appeal/relief ... Assessing 3 Rajendra S Karnavat, AY 2011-12 Officer. Ld. Assessing Officer concluded that it is only the profit embedded in the alleged bogus purchase transaction which needs to be taxed. He thus, arrived at a percentage of 25% of the total non-genuine purchases

M/S Ramniklal & Sons, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer-19(3)(1) Presented Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax 19(3), Mumbai

In the result, assessee gets a partial relief

ITA 1192/MUM/2024[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Sept 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2010-11

For Appellant: Shri Devang Divecha, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Mahita Nair, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 68Section 69C

Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has erred in law and on facts in upholding the addition/disallowance of 100% of the alleged bogus purchases totalling to Rs 60,65,780/-, from party M/s Daksh Diamonds of Rs. 10,27,140/-, M/s Krishna Diam of Rs.43,43,480/-, M/s Rajen Gems ... erred in making disallowance of Rs.60,65,780/- 1.e. 100 percent of purchases as alleged bogus purchases without any basis as to percentage of alleged bogus purchases. 4. The AO has erred in adding entire amount of alleged bogus purchase of Rs.60,65,780/- without appreciating the fact that

Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Divisional Forest Officer

ITA/96/2024HC Rajasthan26 Sept 2024

Bench: AVNEESH JHINGAN,ASHUTOSH KUMAR

Dilipkumar Pashabhai Prajapati, Ahmedabad vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-3(3)(5), Ahmedabad

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee in ITA Nos

ITA 1096/AHD/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad25 Sept 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokarआयकर अपील सं /Ita Nos.1095 & 1096/Ahd/2024 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Years : 2016-17 & 2017-18 Respectively Dilipkumar Pashabhai Prajapati The Income Tax Officer बनाम/ C/Sf 211 Pushp Business Campus Ward-3(3)(5) V/S. Nr. Vastral Cross Road Ahmedabad Sp Ring Road Vastral Ahmedabad – 382 418 "थायी लेखा सं./Pan:Atrpp 9632 R (अपीलाथ%/ Appellant) (&' यथ%/ Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Jinesh Shah, Ar Revenue By : Shri R.N. Dsouza, Cit-Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 10/09/2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 25/09/2024 आदेश/O R D E R Per Makarand V. Mahadeokar, Am:

For Appellant: Shri Jinesh Shah, ARFor Respondent: Shri R.N. Dsouza, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 251Section 68

wholly illegal, unlawful and against the principles of natural justice. 2. The NFAC erred in disallowing the appellant's claim for alleged bogus purchases without considering that the Ld. AO had accepted the corresponding sales made by the appellant. When sales have been accepted, corresponding purchases should have been accepted ... wholly illegal, unlawful and against the principles of natural justice. 2. The NFAC erred in disallowing the appellant's claim for alleged bogus purchases without considering that the Ld. AO had accepted the corresponding sales made by the appellant. When sales have been accepted, corresponding purchases should have been accepted

Dilipkumar Pashabhai Prajapati, Ahmedabad vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-3(3)(5), Ahmedabad

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee in ITA Nos

ITA 1095/AHD/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad25 Sept 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokarआयकर अपील सं /Ita Nos.1095 & 1096/Ahd/2024 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Years : 2016-17 & 2017-18 Respectively Dilipkumar Pashabhai Prajapati The Income Tax Officer बनाम/ C/Sf 211 Pushp Business Campus Ward-3(3)(5) V/S. Nr. Vastral Cross Road Ahmedabad Sp Ring Road Vastral Ahmedabad – 382 418 "थायी लेखा सं./Pan:Atrpp 9632 R (अपीलाथ%/ Appellant) (&' यथ%/ Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Jinesh Shah, Ar Revenue By : Shri R.N. Dsouza, Cit-Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 10/09/2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 25/09/2024 आदेश/O R D E R Per Makarand V. Mahadeokar, Am:

For Appellant: Shri Jinesh Shah, ARFor Respondent: Shri R.N. Dsouza, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 251Section 68

wholly illegal, unlawful and against the principles of natural justice. 2. The NFAC erred in disallowing the appellant's claim for alleged bogus purchases without considering that the Ld. AO had accepted the corresponding sales made by the appellant. When sales have been accepted, corresponding purchases should have been accepted ... wholly illegal, unlawful and against the principles of natural justice. 2. The NFAC erred in disallowing the appellant's claim for alleged bogus purchases without considering that the Ld. AO had accepted the corresponding sales made by the appellant. When sales have been accepted, corresponding purchases should have been accepted

M/S Flora Exports, Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward 31(1), Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed

ITA 502/KOL/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata25 Sept 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Rakesh Mishrai.T.A. No.502/Kol/2024 Assessment Year: 2014-15 M/S Flora Exports……………….………...........………………....Appellant 17/2/H/13, Smith Lane, Taltala, Kolkata – 700013. [Pan: Aabff1684J] Vs. Ito, Ward-31(1), Kolkata.……………….…............................…..…..... Respondent Appearances By: Shri Siddharth Agarwal, Advocate, Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee. Shri Arup Chatterjee, Addl. Cit- Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Revenue. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : July 01, 2024 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : September 25, 2024 आदेश / Order संजय गग", "या"यक सद"य "वारा / Per Sanjay Garg: The Present Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 14.12.2023 Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘Cit(A)’] Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’). 2. The Assessee In This Appeal Has Taken The Following Revised Grounds Of Appeal:

Section 139Section 143(1)Section 147Section 151Section 250

addition of Rs.80,88,954/-(Tara Ma Merchant - Rs.32,31,028/- & Rajpur Trading - Rs.48,57,923/-) made by the A.0. on account of alleged bogus purchases. 6. Without prejudice to the ground no. 5, the Ld. CIT(A) ought to have made reasonable estimate of profit element embedded ... providing accommodation entries to various entities through bogus concerns. The Assessing Officer noted that the assessee was also a beneficiary of accommodation entries of bogus purchases of Rs.80,88,954/- from the aforesaid person. He accordingly reopened the assessment u/s 147 of the Act. During the assessment proceedings, the Assessing

Kay Kay Synthetics, Mumbai vs. I.T.O. National Faceless Assessment Centre, Delhi, Not Known

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

ITA 3959/MUM/2024[ASSESSMENT YEAR 2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Sept 2024

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri Girish Agrawalkay Kay Synthetics, Vs. I.T.O, Nfac, 201-202, Anna New Delhi. Apartments, 2Nd Floor, 14 Main Avenue, Santacruz (W), Mumbai-400054. Pan/Gir No. : Aaafk0934D Appellant .. Respondent Appellant By : Shri Vimal Punmiya.Ar Respondent By : Shri B.B. Nagawe, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 23.09.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 25.09.2024 आदेश / O R D E R Per Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm: The Appeal Is Filed By The Assesse Against The Order Of National Faceless Appeal Centre(Nfac) Delhi / Cit(A), Passed U/Sec 271(1)(C) & U/Sec 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal:

For Appellant: Shri Vimal Punmiya.ARFor Respondent: Shri B.B. Nagawe, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)Section 274Section 275

processed u/sec 143(1) of the Act. Subsequently, the A.O has received information from DGIT (Inv.) Wing, Mumbai that the assesse has entered into bogus purchase transactions with the parties who are providing accommodation bills as per the information of Sale Tax Department, Govt of Maharashtra and the assessee ... Subsequently, the A.O. has initiated penalty proceedings u/s271(1)(c) of the Act, Since assesse has entered into bogus purchase transactions, the A.O relied on the findings in the scrutiny assessment and the assesse was provided adequate opportunity of hearing and the assesse has filed explanations on various dates