ASHOKUMAR M JAIN,MUMBAI V. INCOME TAX OFFICE 19(1)(2), MUMBAI

ITA 1239/MUM/2024

AI Insights

The case involved Ashokkumar M. Jain, the appellant, contesting several grounds related to the Income Tax Officer's (ITO) additions to his income for the Assessment Year 2010-11. The primary issues revolved around the estimated addition of suspicious purchases amounting to Rs. 30,00,332, and the subsequent handling of these additions concerning gross profit and natural justice principles. The appellant argued that the additions were unjustified as he had provided sufficient documentation including invoices and bank statements. The case also referenced the Hon'ble Bombay High Court's judgment in PCIT Vs Mohammad Haji Adam & Co, which influenced the arguments on how additions should be restricted. However, before the tribunal could deliberate on these issues, the appellant withdrew the appeal following the settlement under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 471276 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 24-02-2025
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Assessment Year: 2010-2011
• Other Referred Cases: PCIT Vs Mohammad Haji Adam & Co
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: P. D. CHOUGULE
• Keywords: Principle of natural justice

Judgement Text

"IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL Mumbai “SMC” Bench, Mumbai. Before Smt. Kavitha Rajagopal (JM) & Shri Omkareshwar Chidara (AM) ITA No. 1239/MUM/2024 (Assessment Year : 2010-11) Ashokkumar M. Jain 201/203, Kika Street Gulalwadi Mumbai-400 004. Vs. ITO-19(1)(2) Piramal Chamber Mumbai. PAN : AFIPJ8076J Appellant Respondent Assessee by : None Revenue by : Shri P.D. Chougule Date of Hearing : 19/02/2025 Date of pronouncement : 24/02/2025 O R D E R Per Omkareshwar Chidara (AM) :- In the above captioned appeal, the appellant filed the following grounds of appeal :- Ground 1 - Estimated Addition of Suspicious Purchases of Rs. 30,00,332/- Under the facts of and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the learned CIT(A) erred in sustaining the estimated addition on suspicious purchases and not appreciating the facts of the case wherein the assessee has submitted the invoices, Bank Statement (reflecting payment though account payee cheque) and Stock Movement - being inwards of material (from suspicious dealer) and its subsequent sales with profit margin on the same. Thus, addition is bad in law and needs to be deleted. Ground 2 - Restricting addition upto Gross Profit on undisputed purchases vis-a-vis Gross Profit on disputed purchases (PCIT Vs Mohammad Haji Adam & Co) Under the facts of and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the learned CIT(A) erred in not considering Hon'ble Bombay High Court Judgement in case of PCIT Vs Mohammad Haji Adam & Co where addition was restricted as difference between Gross Profit on undisputed purchases vis-a-vis Gross Profit on disputed purchases Ground 3 - Addition @ 12.5% minus Gross Profit Offered Under the facts of and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the learned CIT(A) erred in upholding addition @12.5% where there are numerous case laws on similar facts where additions were reduced to 2 12.5% minus GP offered. Thus, we request your honour to restrict the addition to 12.5% minus gross profit offered. Ground 4- No Opportunity to Cross - Examine the Parties Under the facts of and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the learned 'CIT(A) erred in understanding that AO has merely relied on information received from sales tax department without making independent enquiries. Further neither any statement on which reliance was paid for addition was provided to appellant nor opportunity of cross examination was provided, denying principle of natural justice, and thus addition is bad in law and needs to be deleted. Ground 5 - Restriction of Addition upto Gross Profit or Net Profit Ratio. Under the facts of and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the learned CIT(A) erred in not restricting Additions to Net Profit or Gross Profit (if not Net Profit) although AO agreed that only profit embedded in such purchases to be taken as the profit earned from purchases shown to have been made from non-existence parties. The appellant craves leave to add, amend, alter or delete any of the above grounds of appeal. 2. Ld. AR of the appellant filed a letter dated 3.2.2025 requesting the Bench that the appellant has already availed Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme, 2024 and hence wanted to withdraw this appeal. Ld. DR has no objection. 3. In view of the above the appeal is dismissed as withdrawn. Order pronounced in the open Court on 24/02/2025. Sd/- Sd/- (KAVITHA RAJAGOPAL) (OMKARESHWAR CHIDARA) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Mumbai; Dated: 24/02/2025 Copy of the Order forwarded to : 1. The Appellant 2. The Respondent. 3. CIT 4. DR, ITAT, Mumbai 3 5. Guard file. BY ORDER, //True Copy// (Assistant Registrar) ITAT, Mumbai PS "