The Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-2(1)(2), Ahmedabad V. M/s. Kintech Synergy Pvt. Ltd., Ahmedabad

ITA 1842/AHD/2016

• Counselvise Citation: [2019] 117 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 6742 (ITAT-AHMEDABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 8 month(s) 24 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 05-04-2019
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: Not Allotted
• Assessment Year: 2012-2013
• Appeal Filed On: 11-07-2016
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: S K DEV
• Assessee Lawyers: S N SOPARKAR
• Keywords: Bogus purchase; Search and seizure; Set aside
• Section: 143(3)

Judgement Text

ITA NO.1842/AHD/2016 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2012-13 PAGE 1 OF 2 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AHMEDABAD A BENCH, AHMEDABAD [CORAM: PRAMOD KUMAR, VP AND MS. MADHUMITA ROY, JM] ITA NO.1842/AHD/2016 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2012-13 DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2(1)(2), AHMEDABAD. ............ APPELLANT VS. KINTECH SYNERGY PVT. LTD., .... RESPONDENT KINTECH HOUSE, 8-9, SHIVALIK PLAZA, OPP. AMA CENTER, IIM ROAD, AHMEDABAD - 380 015. [PAN: AAACK 8854 H] APPEARANCES BY S.K. DEV FOR THE APPELLANT S.N. SOPARKAR FOR THE RESPONDENT DATE OF CONCLUDING THE HEARING : 08.01.2019 DATE OF PRONOUNCING THE ORDER : 05.04.2019 O R D E R PER PRAMOD KUMAR, VICE PRESIDENT: 1. BY WAY OF THIS APPEAL, THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS CHALLENGED CORRECTNESS OF THE ORDER DATED 09.05.2016, PASSED BY THE LD. CIT(A) IN THE M ATTER OF ASSESSMENT UNDER SECTION 143(3) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 FOR THE ASSESSME NT YEARS 2012-13. 2. GRIEVANCES RAISED BY THE APPELLANT ARE AS FOLLOW S :- 1. THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS IN RESTRICTING THE DISALLOWANCE ON ACCOUNT OF BOGUS PURCHASES BY ADOPT ING 12.5% OF THE PROFIT THEREBY GIVING RELIEF OF RS.1,69,94,698/- AS AGAINS T RS.1,94,22,850/- MADE IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER WITHOUT PROPERLY APPRECIATING THE FACTS OF THE CASE AND THE MATERIAL BROUGHT ON RECORD. 2. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CAS E, THE LD. CIT(A) OUGHT TO HAVE UPHELD THE ORDER OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER. 3. IT IS, THEREFORE, PRAYED THAT THE ORDER OF THE L D. CIT(A) MAY BE SET ASIDE AND THAT OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER MAY BE RESTORED T O THE ABOVE EXTENT. 3. WHEN THE APPEAL WAS CALLED OUT FOR HEARING, LEAR NED REPRESENTATIVES FAIRLY AGREED THAT THE ISSUE IN APPEAL IS NOW COVERED BY HONBLE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT JUDGEMENTS WHEREIN IT IS CONSISTENTLY HELD THAT A PROFIT PERCE NTAGE OF 12.5% CAN BE APPLIED IN THE CASES ITA NO.1842/AHD/2016 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2012-13 PAGE 2 OF 2 OF SUCH BOGUS PURCHASES. THE LEARNED CIT(A), AFTER REFERRING THE DECISION OF CIT(A)-2, AHMEDABAD, IN APPELLANTS OWN CASE FOR THE A.YS. 20 09-10 AND 2010-11, ON SIMILAR ISSUE, HAS OBSERVED AS UNDER : SINCE IN THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION, THE ISSUE IS IDENTICALLY INVOLVED WITH THE SLIGHT DIFFERENCE THAT THE NAME OF THE SUPPLIER PAR TIES ARE DIFFERENT WITH THE SOURCE OF INFORMATION. IN A.Y. 2009-10 & 2010-11, THE SOURCE OF INFORMATION WITH REGARD TO BOGUS PURCHASE WAS THE OUTCOME OF THE INQUIRIES/INV ESTIGATION OF THE VAT DEPARTMENT, MAHARASHTRA, WHILE IN THE YEAR UNDER CO NSIDERATION, THE INFORMATION WAS BASED UPON THE SEARCH AND SEIZURE PROCEEDINGS CARRI ED OUT IN THE CASE OF THIRD PARTY NAMELY: TRICON CONSTRUCTION, AHMEDABAD BY THE INCOM E TAX DEPARTMENT. OTHERWISE, THE ISSUE IS SAME. THUS, FOLLOWING THE DECISION OF THE LD. CIT(A) IN APPELLANTS OWN CASE IN THE PRECEDING YEARS, DECISI ON/JUDGEMENT OF HONBLE COURTS INCLUDING JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT AND TO MAINTAIN THE CONSISTENCY FOR THE REASONS DISCUSSED IN THE AFORESAID APPELLATE ORDER, THE DIS ALLOWANCE OF THE BOGUS PURCHASES/LABOUR PAYMENTS TO THE EXTENT OF 12.5% IS FOUND CORRECT AND JUSTIFIED AND SAME IS CONFIRMED WHICH COMES TO RS.24,27,822/-. RELIEF IS GRANTED FOR THE BALANCE AMOUNT. 4. RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE ESTEEMED VIEWS OF HON BLE HIGH COURT, AND AS NO CONTRARY DECISION HAS BEEN CITED BEFORE US, WE APPROVE THE C ONCLUSIONS ARRIVED AT BY THE LEARNED CIT(A) AND DECLINE TO INTERFERE IN THE MATTER. 5. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL IS DISMISSED. PRONOUN CED IN THE OPEN COURT ON THIS 5 TH DAY OF APRIL, 2019. SD/- SD/- MS. MADHUMITA ROY PR AMOD KUMAR (JUDICIAL MEMBER) (VICE PRESIDENT) AHMEDABAD, THE 5 TH DAY OF APRIL, 2019 PBN/* COPIES TO: (1) THE APPELLANT (2) THE RESPOND ENT (3) COMMISSIONER (4) CIT(A) (5) DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE (6) GUARD FILE BY ORDER TRUE COPY ASSISTANT REGISTRAR INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AHMEDABAD BENCHES, AHMEDABAD