DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX - 19(3), MUMBAI V. S. RASIKLAL AND CO., MUMBAI

ITA 4609/MUM/2023

AI Insights

The case involves the Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax-19(3), Mumbai as the appellant and S. Rasiklal and Co. as the respondent. The dispute originated from the assessment year 2009-10, where the assessee made substantial purchases from entities linked to hawala dealings. The Learned Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax disallowed these purchases entirely, which was later modified by the Ld. CIT(A) to a 12.5% addition based on gross profit, referencing judicial precedents. The revenue appealed against this modification, which was dismissed by the tribunal, affirming the CIT(A)'s decision.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 711680 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 21-07-2025
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Assessment Year: 2009-2010
• Other Referred Cases: PCIT vs. S.V. Jiwani [2022] 145 taxmann.com 230 (Bombay), CIT vs. Simit Sheth
• Laws Referred To: Income-tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Assessee Lawyers: ARUN KANTI DATTA
• Keywords: Bogus purchase; Bogus
• Section: 147; 143(3)

Judgement Text

" IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “G”, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI NARENDRA KUMAR BILLAIYA, ACCOUNT MEMBER AND SHRI ANIKESH BANERJEE, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA No.4609/Mum/2023 (Assessment Year: 2009-10) Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax-19(3), Mumbai Room No.513, Fifth Floor, Piramal chambers, Lalbaug, Maharashtra -400 012 vs S. Rasiklal and Co. 101/A, The Capital, B-Wing 1st Floor, Plot No.C70, G Block, BKC Bandra East, Mumbai=-400 051 PAN: AACFS3598R APPLICANT RESPONDENT Assessee by : None Respondent by : Shri Arun Kanti Datta - CIT DR Date of hearing : 17/07/2025 Date of pronouncement : 21/07/2025 O R D E R Per Anikesh Banerjee (JM): The instant appeal of the revenue was filed against the order of the National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi [hereinafter called, ‘Ld. CIT(A)] passed under section 250 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (in short, ‘the Act’) for Assessment Year 2009-10, date of order 19/10/2023. The impugned order emanated from the order of the Learned Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax -19(3), Mumbai (hereinafter Printed from counselvise.com 2 ITA 4609/Mum /2023 S. Rasiklal and Co. called, ‘Ld. AO”) passed under section 143(3) read with section 147 of the Act, date of order 27/03/2015. 2. We heard the Ld.DR and perused the material placed on record. During the impugned assessment year, the assesse has made purchases amount to Rs.3,73,60,738/- from M/s Impex Gems and M/s Jewel Diam, i.e. concerns of Shri Bhanwarilal Jain, which were managed and controlled by the hawala dealers as detailed in the assessment order. The Ld.AO disallowed the entire purchases amounting to Rs.3,73,60,738/- and added with the total income of the assesse. The assesse company, being aggrieved with the appeal order, filed an appeal before the Ld. CIT(A). The Ld.CIT(A), considering the judicial rulings, has accepted the plea of the assesse and restricted the addition on the gross profit @12.5% of the total purchases, thereby restricting the addition only @12.5% of gross profit of the total purchases. Being aggrieved, the revenue filed an appeal before us. 3. When the appeal was called up for hearing, none was present on behalf of the assesse. However, considering the merit of the case, we proceeded to dispose of the appeal exparte qua for the assesse after hearing the Ld. DR and on perusal of the material placed on record. 4. In our considered view, we find that the Ld.CIT(A) has taken the view at paragraph 5.11, which is extracted below:- “5.11 In view of the matter, considering the factual matrix of the case, I am of the opinion that the ratio of the decision of the Hon'ble High Court of Bombay in the case of PCIT vs. S.V. Jiwani [2022] 145 taxmann.com 230 (Bombay) (supra), apart from the decision of Hon'ble High Court of Gujarat in the case of CIT vs. Simit Sheth (supra), is squarely applicable mutatis mutandis to the instant case. Accordingly, the AO is directed to restrict the addition to the extent of 12.5% of the non-genuine/suspicious/bogus purchases instead of disallowing 100% of the purchases in the assessment order. Thus, the ground No.1 raised by the assesse is treated as partly allowed.” Printed from counselvise.com 3 ITA 4609/Mum /2023 S. Rasiklal and Co. 5. The assessee has not preferred any appeal against the confirmation of the addition made at 12.5% of the gross profit on account of bogus purchases. The Ld.CIT(A) confirmed the said addition by respectfully relying on the judgment of the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of PCIT v. S.V. Jiwani [(2022) 145 taxmann.com 230 (Bom)]. In view of the above, and in deference to the binding precedent of the Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court, as well as in adherence to the principles of judicial discipline, we find no reason to interfere with the impugned appellate order. Accordingly, the order passed by the Ld. CIT(A) is hereby upheld. 6. In the result, the appeal of the assessee bearing ITA No.4609/Mum/2023 is dismissed. Order pronounced in the open court on 21st day of July, 2025. Sd/- sd/- (NARENDRA KUMAR BILLAIYA) (ANIKESH BANERJEE) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER Mumbai, िदनांक/Dated: 21/07/2025 Pavanan Copy of the Order forwarded to: 1. अपीलाथ /The Appellant , 2. ितवादी/ The Respondent. 3. आयकर आयु\u0014 CIT 4. िवभागीय ितिनिध, आय.अपी.अिध., मुबंई/DR, ITAT, Mumbai 5. गाड फाइल/Guard file. BY ORDER, //True Copy// (Asstt. Registrar), ITAT, Mumbai Printed from counselvise.com "