OMPRAKASH KANARAM PATEL, Mumbai V. ITO 32(2)(4), Mumbai

ITA 2460/MUM/2019

• Counselvise Citation: [2020] 110 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 4086 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 6 month(s) 4 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 23-10-2020
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Assessment Year: 2011-2012
• Appeal Filed On: 18-04-2019
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: AJAY PRATAP SINGH
• Keywords: Bogus purchase
• Section: 143(3)

Judgement Text

, IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH SMC, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI VIKAS AWASTHY, JUDICIAL MEMBER . 2460 //201 9 (. . 2011-12 ) ITA NO. 2460/MUM/2019 (A.Y.2011-12) OMPRAKASH KANARAM PATEL 46-A WING, GANJAWALA APARTMENT, S.V. P. ROAD, BORIVALI (W), MUMBAI 400 092 / VS. THE ITO -32(2)(4) ROOM NO.306, C-11, PRATYAKSHA KAR BHAVAN, BANDRA KURLA COMPLEX, BANDRA (W), MUMBAI 400 051 PAN/GIR NO:ALKPP6740P ( /APPELLANT) : ( / RESPONDENT) ASSESSEE BY : NONE REVENUE BY : SHRI AJAY PRATAP SINGH (DR) / DATE OF HEARING : 14/10/2020 / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 23/10/2020 / ORDER THIS APPEAL BY THE ASSESSEE IS DIRECTED AGAINST TH E ORDER OF COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (APPEALS)-46, MUMBAI [IN SHORT CIT(A)] DATED 27.02.2019 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2011-12. 2. THE BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE AS EMANATING FROM TH E RECORDS ARE: THE ASSESSEE IS A TRADER IN BUILDING MATERIAL. THE ASSE SSMENT FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2011-12 IN THE CASE OF ASSESSEE WAS RE-OPENED ON TH E BASIS OF INFORMATION RECEIVED BY DGIT (INVESTIGATION) FROM MAHARASHTRA S ALES TAX DEPARTMENT THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS INDULGED IN OBTAINING BOGUS PURCHA SE BILLS AGGREGATING TO RS. 1,36,88,928/- FROM VARIOUS HAWALA DEALERS. THE ASSE SSING OFFICER ESTIMATED 2 ITA NO .2460/MUM/2019 (A.Y.2011-12) GROSS PROFIT ON NON-GENUINE PURCHASE AT 12.5%. AND MADE ADDITION OF RS. 17,11,116/-. AGGRIEVED AGAINST THE ASSESSMENT ORDER DATED 18.12.2015 PASSED UNDER SECTION 143(3) R.W.SEC. 147 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 (HEREINAFTER REFERRED AS THE ACT), THE ASSESSEE FILED APPEAL B EFORE THE CIT(A). THE CIT(A) VIDE IMPUGNED ORDER UPHELD THE FINDINGS OF THE ASSE SSING OFFICER AND DISMISSED THE APPEAL OF ASSESSEE IN TOTO. HENCE, TH E PRESENT APPEAL BY THE ASSESSEE. 3. SHRI AJAY PRATAP SINGH REPRESENTING THE DEPARTME NT VEHEMENTLY DEFENDED THE IMPUGNED ORDER AND PRAYED FOR DISMISSI NG THE APPEAL OF ASSESSEE. 4. SUBMISSIONS MADE BY DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE (DR) HEARD AND ORDERS OF AUTHORITIES BELOW EXAMINED. THE ASSESSEE HAS PURPORTEDLY OBTAINED BOGUS PURCHASE BILLS TO THE TUNE OF RS. 1,36,88,928 /- FROM VARIOUS HAWALA DEALERS. THE ASSESSEE FAILED TO PROVE TRAIL OF GOOD S, THOUGH THE PAYMENTS WERE MADE AGAINST ALLEGED BOGUS BILLS THROUGH BANKING CH ANNEL. 5. ADMITTEDLY, THE DEPARTMENT NEVER RAISED ANY DOUB T OVER THE SALES DECLARED BY THE ASSESSEE. THE ASSESSING OFFICER HEL D THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS MADE PURCHASES FROM THE GREY MARKET AND HAD OBTAINE D CORRESPONDING BOGUS BILLS FROM HAWALA OPERATORS. THE ASSESSING OFFICER ESTIMATED GROSS PROFIT ON BOGUS PURCHASE @ 12.5% AND THUS MADE ADDITION OF RS . 17,11,116/-. IN FIRST APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS, THE FINDINGS OF THE ASSESSIN G OFFICER WERE CONFIRMED BY THE CIT(A). TAKING INTO CONSIDERATION ENTIRETY OF F ACTS, I AM OF CONSIDERED VIEW THAT GROSS PROFIT ESTIMATED BY ASSESSING OFFICER/CI T(A) IS ON THE HIGHER SIDE. IN 3 ITA NO .2460/MUM/2019 (A.Y.2011-12) MY CONSIDERED VIEW THE ENDS OF JUSTICE WOULD MEET, IF THE GROSS PROFIT IS ESTIMATED @ 8% OF THE BOGUS PURCHASES. THE APPEAL O F THE ASSESSEE IS PARTLY ALLOWED IN THE TERM AFORESAID. 6. IN THE RESULT, APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS PARTLY ALLOWED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON FRIDAY THE 23 RD DAY OF OCTOBER, 2020. SD/- ./- (VIKAS AWASTHY) / JUDICIAL MEMBER / MUMBAI, )/ DATED: 23/10/2020 S.K., PS * , * , * , * , COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. . / THE APPELLANT , 2. */ / THE RESPONDENT. 3. 0 ( )/ THE CIT(A)- 4. 0 CIT 5. * , . . . , / DR, ITAT, MUMBAI 6. 4 / GUARD FILE. BY ORDER, //TRUE COPY// (DY./ASSTT. REGISTRAR) ITAT, MUMBAI