RITESH JAIN, MUMBAI V. ITO 32(3)(2), MUMBAI

ITA 2790/MUM/2017

• Counselvise Citation: [2017] 128 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 0389 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 month(s) 1 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 20-06-2017
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Assessment Year: 2009-2010
• Appeal Filed On: 18-04-2017
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: T A KHAN
• Keywords: Bogus purchase

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCHES SMC, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI B R BASKARAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO.2790/MUM/2017 ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2009-10 SHRI RITESH JAIN B-607/608, SHUBHAM DHAARMAJI THAKUR CHS, EKSAR ROAD, BORIVALI (E) MUMBAI- 400 092 PAN AAIPJ8820H VS. ITO 32 ( 3 )( 2 ) MUMBAI (APPELLANT) RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY : SHRI BHUPENDRA SHAH RESPONDENT BY : SHRI T A KHAN DATE OF HEARING : 20 .0 6 .201 7 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 20 .0 6 . 201 7 O R D E R THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED THIS APPEAL CHALLENGING THE ORDER DATED 09.03.2017, PASSED BY LD CIT(A)-44, MUMBAI, AND IT RELATES TO THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2009-10. THE ASSESSEE IS AGGRIEVED BY THE DECISION OF LD CIT(A) IN SUSTAINING THE ADDITION RELATING TO ALLEG ED BOGUS PURCHASES TO THE EXTENT OF 6% OF VALUE OF BOGUS PURCHASES. 2. I HEARD THE PARTIES AND PERUSED THE RECORD. THE ASSESSEE IS ENGAGED IN THE BUSINESS OF TRADING IN BUILDING MATERIALS. THE AO NOTICED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS PURCHASED GOODS FROM CERTAIN DEALERS, WHO HAVE BEEN IDENTIFIED AS HAWALA DEALERS BY THE SALES TAX DEPARTMENT OF GO VERNMENT OF MAHARASHTRA. THE AGGREGATE AMOUNT OF PURCHASES WAS RS.1,04,27,226/-. THE AO PREFERRED TO ADD 12.5% OF THE PURCHASE VALUE AS THE UNPROVED PURCHASES. THE LD CIT(A) NOTICED THAT THE TRIBUNAL HAS REDUCED THE ADDITION TO 6% IN THE ASSESSEES OWN CASE RELATING TO AY 201 0-11. ACCORDINGLY, BY ITA NO.2790/MUM/2017 SHRI RITESH JAIN 2 FOLLOWING THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL, THE LD CIT(A) REDUCED THE ADDITION TO 6% OF THE VALUE OF BOGUS PURCHASES. STILL AGGRIEVED, T HE ASSESSEE HAS FILED THIS APPEAL BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL. 3. THE LD A.R SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS BE EN SHOWING CONSISTENT G.P RATE AND, FURTHER, SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS PROVED THE PURCHASES BY FURNISHING ALL THE DOCUMENTS. HE SUBMITTED THAT TH E ADDITION OF 6% IS ALSO ON THE HIGHER SIDE. HE SUBMITTED THAT EACH YEAR IS DI FFERENT AND HENCE THE DECISION RENDERED BY THE TRIBUNAL IN AY 2010-11 NEE D NOT BE FOLLOWED. 4. ON THE CONTRARY, THE LD D.R SUBMITTED THAT THE LD CIT(A) HAS FOLLOWED THE DECISION OF THE DIVISION BENCH AND, HENCE, THE SAME SHOULD BE SUSTAINED. 5. HAVING HEARD RIVAL CONTENTIONS AND UPON PER USAL OF RECORDS, I AM OF THE VIEW THAT THE DECISION RENDERED BY LD CIT(A) DOES N OT CALL FOR ANY INTERFERENCE, SINCE THE LD CIT(A) HAS FOLLOWED THE DECISION RENDERED BY THE DIVISION BENCH OF TRIBUNAL IN ASSESSEES OWN CASE R ELATING TO AY 2010-11 ON IDENTICAL SET OF FACTS. ACCORDINGLY, I UPHOLD THE ORDER PASSED BY LD CIT(A). 6. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON THIS DAY OF 2 0 TH JUNE 2017 SD/- (B R BASKARAN) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER MUMBAI, DATED : 20 TH JUNE, 2017. SA COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. THE APPELLANT. 2. THE RESPONDENT. 3. THE C I T(A), MUMBAI. 4. THE C I T 5. THE DR, SMC BENCH, ITAT, MUMBAI BY ORDER //TRUE COPY// (ASSISTANT REGISTRAR) INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, MUMBAI