ITO 29 (2)(3), Mumbai V. M/S MANISHA RUBBER ENTERPRISES, Mumbai

ITA 2315/MUM/2019

• Counselvise Citation: [2021] 109 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 7912 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 8 month(s) 27 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 08-01-2021
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Assessment Year: 2011-2012
• Appeal Filed On: 12-04-2019
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: AJAY PRATAP SINGH
• Keywords: Bogus purchase
• Section: 143(3); 133(6)

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH SMC, MUMBAI , ! BEFORE SHRI VIKAS AWASTHY, JUDICIAL MEMBER . 2315 / / 2019 (%. .2011-12 ) ITA NO. 2315/MUM/2019 (A.Y.2011-12) INCOME TAX OFFICER 29(2)(3), C-10, 2 ND FLOOR, ROOM NO.204, PRATYAKSHAKAR BHAVAN, BKC, BANDRA (E), MUMBAI 400 051. / VS. : / APPELLANT M/S. MANISHA RUBBER ENTERPRISES, 50, UNIQUE INDUSTRIAL ESTATE, OPP. JAWAHAR CINEMA, DR.RAJENDRA PRASAD RD., MULUND (W),MUMBAI 400 080. PAN: AAAFM6198D : / RESPONDENT ASSESSEE BY : NONE REVENUE BY : SHRI AJAY PRATAP SINGH / DATE OF HEARING : 13/10/2020 / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 08/01/2021 / ORDER THIS APPEAL BY THE REVENUE IS DIRECTED AGAINST TH E ORDER OF COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS)-40, MUMBAI ( IN SHORT THE CIT (A)) DATED 09/01/2019 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2011-12. 2. THE BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE AS EMANATING FROM THE RECORDS ARE: THE ASSESSEE IS ENGAGED IN MANUFACTURING OF RUBBER PRODUCTS LIKE CO NVEYOR BELTS, GASKETS, ETC. THE ASSESSEE FILED ITS RETURN OF INCOME FOR THE IMPUGNE D ASSESSMENT YEAR ON 27/07/2011 DECLARED TOTAL INCOME OF RS.92,730/-. ON THE BASIS OF INFORMATION RECEIVED FROM 2 ITA NO. 2315/MUM/2019 (A.Y.2011-12) DGIT(INV.) THE ASSESSMENT IN THE CASE ASSESSEE FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2011-12 WAS REOPENED. AS PER THE INFORMATION RECEIVED, THE ASS ESSEE HAS OBTAINED BOGUS PURCHASE BILLS AMOUNTING TO RS.6,59,715/- DURING TH E PERIOD RELEVANT TO THE ASSESSMENT YEAR UNDER APPEAL FROM M/S.PAYAL ENTERPR ISE, A DECLARED HAWALA DEALER. DURING ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS THE ASSESSING OFFICE R ASKED THE ASSESSEE TO PROVE GENUINENESS OF THE PURCHASES. THE ASSESSEE FAILED TO PRODUCE DOCUMENTS LIKE OCTROI RECEIPTS, TRANSPORT RECEIPTS, STOCK REGISTER , ETC. TO SHOW TRAIL OF GOODS. THE ASSESSEE EVEN FAILED TO PRODUCE THE SUPPLIER OF THE GOODS. EVEN THE NOTICE SENT BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER UNDER SECTION 133(6) OF THE I NCOME TAX ACT, 1961 ( IN SHORT THE ACT), TO THE SUPPLIER ON THE ADDRESS PROVIDED BY THE ASSESSEE REMAIN UNRESPONDED. THUS, THE ASSESSING OFFICER MADE ADDITION OF RS.1,6 4,929/- BY ESTIMATING GP @25% ON BOGUS PURCHASES. AGGRIEVED BY ASSESSMENT ORDER DATED 23/03/2016 PASSED UNDER SECTION 143(3) R.W.S. 147 OF THE ACT, THE ASS ESSEE FILED APPEAL BEFORE THE CIT(A) INTER-ALIA CHALLENGING THE ADDITION ON ACCOUNT OF B OGUS PURCHASES. BEFORE THE CIT(A) THE ASSESSEE AGREED FOR ESTIMATED ADDITION @20% ON BOGUS PURCHASES. THE CIT(A) RESTRICTED THE ADDITION TO 20% OF SUCH PURCHASES. THE REVENUE IS IN APPEAL AGAINST MARGINAL RELIEF ALLOWED BY THE CIT(A) ON BOGUS P URCHASES. 3. SHRI AJAY PRATAP SINGH, REPRESENTING THE DEPARTM ENT VEHEMENTLY DEFENDED THE ASSESSMENT ORDER AND PRAYED FOR REVERSING THE F INDING OF CIT(A). THE LD. DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSE SSING OFFICER HAS BEEN QUITE GENEROUS IN RESTRICTING THE ADDITION TO 25%, DESPI TE THE FACT THAT THE ASSESSEE FAILED TO PROVE GENUINENESS OF THE PURCHASES AND THE SUPPL IER. 4. THE SUBMISSIONS MADE BY LD. DEPARTMENTAL REPRESE NTATIVE HEARD, ORDERS OF AUTHORITIES BELOW EXAMINED. TAKING INTO CONSIDERAT ION ENTIRETY OF FACTS, I AM OF THE CONSIDERED VIEW THAT ADDITION @25% ESTIMATED BY ASS ESSING OFFICER ON BOGUS PURCHASES IS ON THE HIGHER SIDE. BEFORE THE CIT(A) , THE ASSESSEE ADMITTED FOR ADDITION @20% ON BOGUS PURCHASES. THE CIT(A) IN ASS ESSEES OWN CASE FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2009-10 RESTRICTED THE ADDITION TO 20% OF BOGUS PURCHASES. THE 3 ITA NO. 2315/MUM/2019 (A.Y.2011-12) SAME WAS ACCEPTED BY THE DEPARTMENT. NO DISTINGUIS HING FACT HAS BEEN BROUGHT BEFORE US BY THE LD. DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE IN THE INSTANT ASSESSMENT YEAR. IN ANY CASE THE ADDITION MADE BY ASSESSING OFFICER A ND THE CIT(A) IS ON MERE ESTIMATIONS. I FIND NO ERROR IN THE ACTION OF CIT( A) IN RESTRICTING THE ADDITION TO 20%. THUS, THE FINDINGS OF CIT(A) ON THE ISSUE ARE UPHE LD AND THE APPEAL BY REVENUE IS DISMISSED BEING DEVOID OF ANY MERIT. 5. NO APPEAL/CROSS OBJECTIONS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AG AINST THE ORDER OF CIT(A) HAS BEEN BROUGHT TO THE NOTICE OF BENCH. IN CASE ANY APPEAL/CROSS OBJECTIONS BY THE ASSESSEE AGAINST IMPUGNED ORDER OF CIT(A) IS NO TICED, THEN THIS ORDER MAY BE RECALLED AND THE CROSS APPEALS MAY BE LISTED TOGETH ER FOR DISPOSAL BY A COMMON ORDER . 6. IN THE RESULT, APPEAL BY THE REVENUE IS DISMISSE D. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON FRIDAY, THE 08 TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2021. SD/- (VIKAS AWASTHY) / JUDICIAL MEMBER / MUMBAI, (%/ DATED: 08/01/2021 VM , SR. PS(O/S) COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. ) / THE APPELLANT , 2. *+ / THE RESPONDENT. 3. ,+ ( )/ THE CIT(A)- 4. ,+ CIT 5. -.*+% , . . . , / DR, ITAT, MUMBAI 6. ./012 / GUARD FILE. BY ORDER, //TRUE COPY// (DY./ASSTT. REGISTRAR) ITAT, MUMBAI