M/S. RAMNIKLAL SIVJI SAVLA, MUMBAI V. CIT (A)-30, MUMBAI

ITA 1261/MUM/2020

AI Insights

The case involves M/s. Ramniklal Sivaji Savla, a trader in ferrous and non-ferrous metals, who appealed against the order of the CIT(A)-30, Mumbai, which partially confirmed the addition related to alleged bogus purchases for A.Y. 2009-10. The Assessing Officer had initially reopened the assessment based on information from the Sales tax department of Maharashtra, suspecting that the assessee had made non-genuine purchases from four dealers totaling Rs. 1.73 crores. The CIT(A) reduced the addition made by the Assessing Officer from 25% to 12.50% of the value of these purchases. The Tribunal, noting the incomplete submission of the CIT(A)'s order and referencing a similar case for A.Y. 2011-12, decided to remand the issue back to the CIT(A) for a fresh decision.

• Counselvise Citation: [2022] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 131971 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 12 year(s) 5 month(s) 21 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 14-12-2022
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Next Hearing Date: 05-10-2022
• Assessment Year: misc
• Appeal Filed On: 23-06-2010
• Other Referred Cases: ITA No. 6696/Mum/2019
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Bogus purchase
• Section: 148; 143(1)

Judgement Text

THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “SMC” Bench, Mumbai Shri B.R. Baskaran (AM) I.T.A. No. 1261/Mum/2020 (A.Y. 2009-10) M/s. Ramniklal Sivaji Savla 74, Mulji Bhai Building Khetwadi Main Road Mumbai-400 004. PAN : AACPS7486C Vs. CITA-30 Matru Mandir Building Tardeo Road Grant Road Mumbai-400 007. (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by Shri Dilip Shah Department by Ms. Indira Adakil Date of Hearing 06.10.2022 Date of Pronouncement 15.12.2022 O R D E R The assessee has filed this appeal challenging the order dated 23.7.2018 passed by the learned CIT(A)-30, Mumbai and it relates to A.Y. 2009-10. The assessee is aggrieved by the decision of the learned CIT(A) in partially confirming the addition relating to the alleged bogus purchases. 2. The facts relating to the issue are stated in brief. The assessee is a trader in ferrous and non-ferrous metal. He filed its return of income for the year under consideration declaring total income of Rs. 2,80,938/-. The said return was processed under section 143(1) of the I.T. Act. The Assessing Officer subsequently received information from the investigation wing that a scam has been unearthed by the Sales tax department of Maharashtra wherein it was found that some of the dealers were providing accommodation sale bills without actually supplying the material. From the list of such dealers as notified by the sales tax department, it was noticed that the assessee has purchased goods from four dealers for amounts aggregating to Rs. 1.73 crores. Accordingly the Assessing Officer took the view that the above said purchases as non-genuine in nature. Accordingly he reopened the assessment by issuing M/s. Ramniklal Sivaji Savla 2 notice under section 148 of the Act. The Assessing Officer estimated the income @ 25% of the non-genuine purchases and accordingly made addition of Rs. 43,40,981/-. 3. The learned CIT(A) restricted the addition to 12.50% of the value of the alleged bogus purchases. Still aggrieved, the assessee has filed this appeal before the Tribunal. 4. It was noticed that the copy of order of the learned CIT(A) filed by the assessee before the Tribunal is incomplete, i.e. only the first page and the last page alone has been filed and not the entire order. Accordingly the assessee was directed to furnish full set of order of the learned CIT(A). 5. At the time of hearing learned AR however filed the appellate order pertaining to A.Y. 2010-11. He assured that he will file full appellate order pertaining to A.Y. 2009-10. However, till date the above said defect has not been rectified. 6. At the time of hearing, the learned AR furnished a copy of the order passed by the Tribunal in assessee’s own case in ITA No. 6696/Mum/2019 dated 3.8.2021 relating to A.Y. 2011-12. The Tribunal in A.Y.2011-12 has further restricted the disallowance to 8% of the value of alleged bogus purchases. 7. Since the assessee has failed to furnish copy of the appellate order passed by the learned CIT(A) in the instant year, I am unable to appreciate the decision given by the first appellate authority and hence a decision could not be arrived at. However, I notice that the Tribunal has decided an identical issue in AY 2011-12 in the assessee’s own case. Under these set of facts, I have no other option but the restore this issue to the file of the learned CIT(A) for adjudicating them afresh by duly considering the order passed by the Tribunal in assessee’s own case in A.Y. 2011-12. I order accordingly. M/s. Ramniklal Sivaji Savla 3 8. In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is treated as allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open court on 15.12.2022. SD/- (B.R. BASKARAN) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Mumbai; Dated : 15/12/2022 Copy of the Order forwarded to : 1. The Appellant 2. The Respondent 3. The CIT(A) 4. CIT 5. DR, ITAT, Mumbai 6. Guard File. BY ORDER, //True Copy// (Assistant Registrar) PS ITAT, Mumbai