M/S MICRON PLATERS, V. INCOME TAX OFFICER20 (2) (2), MUMBAI

ITA 3090/MUM/2016

• Counselvise Citation: [2017] 128 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 1184 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 11 month(s) 10 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 12-04-2017
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Assessment Year: 2010-2011
• Appeal Filed On: 02-05-2016
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: BEENA SANTOSH
• Assessee Lawyers: A K SINHA
• Keywords: Bogus purchase
• Section: 69C

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL SMC BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI D. KARUNAKARA RAO, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO.3090/M/2016 (AY 2010 - 2011) M/S. MICRON PLATERS, 1/11, BUILDING NO.2, 1 ST FLOOR, MAROL UDYOG PREMISES COOP. SOC., MAROL MAROSHI ROAD, ANDHERI (E), MUMBAI 400 059. / VS. ITO - 20(2)(2), MUMBAI. ./ PAN : AAQFM3374F ( / APPELLANT) .. ( / RESPONDENT ) / APPELLANT BY : SHRI A.K. SINHA / RESPONDENT BY : MS. BEENA SANTOSH, DR / DATE OF HEARING : 20.03.2017 / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 12 .04.2017 / O R D E R PER D. KARUNAKARA RAO, AM: THIS APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE ON 2.5.2016 IS AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE CIT (A) - 36, MUMBAI DATED 28.03.2016 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2010 - 2011. 2. THE ONLY ISSUE RAISED IN THIS APPEAL RELATES TO THE CIT (A)S DECISION IN RESTRICTING THE ADDITION TO 12.5% OF THE BOGUS PURCHASES AMOUNTING TO RS. 18,31,500/ - . BRIEFLY STATED RELEVANT FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT THE ASSESSEE CLAIMED THE SAID PURCHASES FROM M/S. DEV ENTERPRISES, WHOSE NAME HAS APPEARED IN THE BLOCKLIST OF THE OFFICIAL WEBSITE MAINTAINED BY THE SALES TAX DEPARTMENT. IN THE ASSESSMENT, AO DISALLOWED THE SA ID AMOUNT U/S 69C OF THE ACT TREATING THE SAME AS BOGUS PURCHASES. MATTER TRAVELLED TO THE FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY. 3. DURING THE PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY, CIT (A) RESTRICTED THE SAID ADDITION TO 12.5% OF THE ALLEGED BOGUS PURCHA SES AMOUNTING TO RS. 18,31,500/ - . WHILE COMING TO THE SAID DECISION, CIT (A) RELIED ON THE JUDGMENT OF THE HONBLE GUJARAT HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. SIMIT P. SHETH (355 ITR 290) 2 (GUJ.) AND OTHERS. NOT SATISFIED WITH THE SAID DECISION OF THE CIT (A) , ASSESSEE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL. 4. DURING THE PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL, LD COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE REITERATED THE SUBMISSIONS MADE BEFORE THE LOWER AUTHORITIES. FURTHER, LD AR RELIE D ON THE COMPLETE DOCUMENTATION IE INVOICES, PAYMENT RECEIPTS, BOOKS OF ACCOUNT ETC. 5. AFTER HEARING THE LD DR AND ON PERUSAL OF THE ORDERS OF THE REVENUE AUTHORITIES AS WELL AS THE RELEVANT MATERIAL PLACED BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL, I FIND, THE CIT (A) HAS TAK EN A FAIR VIEW AND THE SAME IS IN TUNE WITH THE SETTLED LEGAL POSITION OF THE ISSUE BY VIRTUE OF THE JUDGMENT OF THE HONBLE GUJARAT HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. SIMIT P. SHETH , ITA NO. 553 OF 2012, DATED 16.1.2013 READ WITH THE JUDGMENT OF THE HONBL E JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF NICKUNJ EXIMP ENTERPRISES PVT LTD VS. ACIT VIDE WRIT PETITION NO. 2860 OF 2012, DATED 18 TH JUNE, 2014 WHEREIN RESTRICTING THE ADDITION TO THE GP RATE OF 12.5% IS APPROVED. CONSIDERING THE SAME I AM OF THE VIEW TH E ORDER OF THE CIT (A) IS FAIR AND REASONABLE AND IT DOES NOT CALL FOR ANY INTERFERENCE. ACCORDINGLY, GROUNDS RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE ARE DISMISSED. 6. IN THE RESULT, APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCE D IN THE OPEN COURT ON 1 2 T H APRI L, 2017. S D / - (D. KARUNAKARA RAO) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER MUMBAI ; 12 .04.2017 . . ./ OKK , SR. PS / COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. / THE APPELLANT 2. / THE RESPONDENT. 3. ( ) / THE CIT(A) - 4. / CIT 5. , , / DR, ITAT, MUMBAI 3 6. / GUARD FILE . //TRUE COPY// / BY ORDER, / (DY./ASSTT. REGISTRAR) , / ITAT, MUMBAI