SAURABH SURYAKANT MEHTA, MUMBAI V. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX - 20, MUMBAI

ITA 3096/MUM/2018

• Counselvise Citation: [2018] 118 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 8055 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 7 month(s) 9 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 20-12-2018
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: J
• Assessment Year: 2010-2011
• Appeal Filed On: 11-05-2018
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Assessee Lawyers: DR K SHIVARAM; ADITYA R AJGAONKAR A RS
• Keywords: Bogus purchase; Unexplained expenditure; Accommodation entries
• Section: 69C; 143(3); 143(1); 263

Judgement Text

SAURABH SURYAKANT MEHTA VS. PR. CIT - 20, MUMBAI ITA NO. 3096/MUM/2018 A.Y 2010 - 11 1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL 'G' BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI B.R BASKARAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI RAVISH SOOD, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA NO. 3096/MUM/2018 (ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2010 - 11 ) SAURABH SURYAKANT MEHTA 9/7, RATTAN LODGE, BEHIND ARORA CINEMA KINGS CIRCLE MUMBAI - 400 0 19 VS. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME - TAX - 20, PIRAMAL CHAMBERS, 4 TH FLOOR, PAREL, MUMBAI 400 019 PAN AANPM3777B (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY: DR. K. SHIVARAM, SR. ADVOCATE & SH. ADITYA R. AJGAONKAR, A.RS RESPONDENT BY: K. MADHUSUDAN. D.R DATE OF HEARING: 25.09 .2018 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT: 20 .12.2018 O R D E R PER RAVISH SOOD, JM THE PRESENT APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER PASSED BY THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME - TAX - 20, MUMBAI (FOR SHORT PR. CIT) UNDER SEC. 263 OF THE INCOME - TAX ACT, 1961 (FOR SHORT I.T ACT) , DATED 28.03.2018, WHICH IN TURN ARI SES FROM THE ORDER PASSED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER (FOR SHORT A.O) UNDER SEC. 143(3) R.W.S 147 OF THE I.T ACT., DATED 23.03.2016 FOR A.Y. 2010 - 11 . THE ASSESSING ASSAILING THE ORDER OF THE PR. CIT HAS RAISED BEFORE US THE FOLLOWING EFFECTIVE GROUNDS OF AP PEAL : SAURABH SURYAKANT MEHTA VS. PR. CIT - 20, MUMBAI ITA NO. 3096/MUM/2018 A.Y 2010 - 11 2 (1). THE LD. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME - TAX (THE LD. PR. CIT) ERRED IN INVOKING THE JURISDICTION U/S 263 AND NOT APPRECIATING THAT THE LD. A.O HAD TAKEN A POSSIBLE VIEW AND HAD RIGHTLY ESTIMATED THE SUPPRESSED PROFIT OF RS. 3,68,985/ - ON ALLEGED BOGUS PURCHASES AFTER DETAILED VERIFICATION OF FACTS AND EVIDENCES. (2). IN THE ALTERNATIVE AND WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO THE ABOVE, THE LD. PR. CIT ERRED IN OBSERVING THAT THE ENTIRE AMOUNT OF THE ALLEGED BOGUS PURCHASES OUGHT TO BE ADDED TO THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE. (3).THE LD. PR. CIT FAILED TO APPRECIATE THAT, IN THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, ONLY THE INCOME ELEMENT EMBEDDED IN THE ALLEGED BOGUS PURCHASES OUGHT TO HAVE BEEN ESTIMATED, AS RIGHTLY DONE BY THE LD. A.O. 2. BRIEFLY STATED, THE ASSESSEE WHO IS ENGAGED IN THE BUSINESS OF TRADING IN IRON & STEEL AS A PROPRIETOR OF A CONCERN VIZ. M/ MINION STEELS HAD FILED HIS RETURN OF INCOME FOR A.Y 2010 - 11 ON 14.08.2010, DECLARING TOTAL INCOME AT RS. 3,29,503/ - . THE RETURN OF INCOME FILED BY THE ASSESSEE WAS PROCESSED AS SUCH UNDER SEC. 143(1) OF THE I.T ACT. SUBSEQUENTLY, ON THE BASIS OF INFORMATION RECEIVED FROM THE SALES TAX DEPARTMENT (THROUGH THE OFFICE OF THE DGIT, MUMBAI) THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD TAKEN ACCOMMODATION ENTRIES OF PUR CHASES AMOUNTING TO RS. 1,97,31,785/ - FROM THE FOLLOWING PARTIES : NAME OF THE HAWALA PARTY PAN F.Y AMOUNT NB ENTERPRISES AAYPL7154J 2009 - 10 RS. 20,60,511/ - J.B INTERLINK ADVPT2496H 2009 - 10 RS. 32,96,918/ - JINDAL STEEL CORPORATION ALEPB6133C 2009 - 10 RS. 33,14,920/ - UNIVERSAL TRADING CO. AJIPJ7859H 2009 - 10 RS. 1,10,59,436/ - TOTAL RS. 1,97,31,785/ - , THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE WAS REOPENED UNDER SEC. 147 OF THE I.T ACT. 3. DURING THE COURSE OF THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS THE A.O CALLED UPON THE ASSESSEE TO SUBSTANTIATE THE GENUINENESS AND VERACITY OF THE PURCHASES CLAIMED TO HAVE BEEN MADE FROM THE AFOREMENTIONED PARTIES. AS OBSERVED BY THE A.O, THE ASSESSEE IN ORDER TO PROVE THE GENUINENESS OF THE PURCHASES UNDER CONSIDERATION PLACED ON RECORD SUPPORTING DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCES VIZ. (I). COPIES OF PURCHASE BILLS; (II). SAURABH SURYAKANT MEHTA VS. PR. CIT - 20, MUMBAI ITA NO. 3096/MUM/2018 A.Y 2010 - 11 3 BANK STATEMENTS IDENTIFYING CHEQUE PAYMENTS MADE AGAINST THE ABOVEMENTIONED PURCHASES; (III). COPIES OF SUPPLI ERS LEDGER ACCOUNTS; AND (IV). CORRESPONDING SALES MADE AGAINST THE PURCHASES FROM THE AFOREMENTIONED PARTIES. APART THEREFROM, THE PARTY - WISE DETAILS OF ALL PURCHASES AND SALES OF THE ASSESSEE WERE ALSO PLACED ON THE RECORD OF THE A.O. IT WAS THE CONTENTI ON OF THE ASSESSEE THAT THE ALLEGATIONS MADE BY THE SALES TAX DEPARTMENT THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD NOT MADE ANY GENUINE PURCHASES FROM THE AFOREMENTIONED PARTIES AND HAD ONLY OBTAINED ACCOMMODATION ENTRIES FROM THEM WAS UNTRUE AND INCORRECT. RATHER, IT WAS THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE THAT THE FAILURE ON THE PART OF THE AFOREMENTIONED SUPPLIER PARTIES TO COMPLY WITH THE VAT PROVISIONS AND TO DEPOSIT THE SALES TAX COLLECTED FROM HIM WOULD NOT RENDER THE PURCHASES MADE FROM TH O SE PARTIES AS BOGUS. IN ORDER TO BUTTRE SS THE AUTHENTICITY OF THE PURCHASES UNDER CONSIDERATION, THE ASSESSEE PRODUCED BEFORE THE A.O THE DETAILED QUANTITATIVE AND VALUE - WISE STOCK REGISTER THAT WAS REGULARLY MAINTAINED BY HIM FOR EACH ITEM OF GOODS PURCHASED AND SOLD DURING THE YEAR. FURTHER, IT WAS SUBMITTED BY HIM THAT AS IN THE PAST, DURING THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION ALSO HE HAD NO OPENING AND/OR CLOSING STOCK AND ALL THE GOODS PURCHASED BY HIM WERE SOLD DURING THE YEAR ITSELF. IN ORDER TO REMOVE ANY SCOPE OF DOUBT AS REGARDS HIS CLAIM THA T THE GOODS PURCHASED FROM THE AFOREMENTIONED PARTIES WERE SOLD DURING THE YEAR ITSELF, THE ASSESSEE DULY IDENTIFIED THE QUANTITY AND VALUE - WISE DISPOSAL OF ALL HIS PURCHASES MADE FROM THE AFOREMENTIONED PARTIES DURING THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION. 4. THE A.O AFTER DELIBERATING ON THE CONTENTIONS ADVANCED BY THE ASSESSEE OBSERVED, THAT AS THE ASSESSEE HAD FAILED TO PLACE ON RECORD THE CONFIRMATIONS OF THE AFOREMENTIONED SUPPLIER PARTIES, THEREFORE, IT COULD SAFELY BE INFERRED THAT HE HAD PURCHASED THE GOOD S FROM THE O PEN/GREY MARKET. THE A.O OBSERVED THAT THE ASSESSEE AFTER PROCURING SAURABH SURYAKANT MEHTA VS. PR. CIT - 20, MUMBAI ITA NO. 3096/MUM/2018 A.Y 2010 - 11 4 THE GOODS FROM THE GREY MARKET WOULD HAD THEREAFTER OBTAINED THE BILLS FROM THE AFOREMENTIONED HAWALA DEALERS, AND THE MONEY RECEIVED BACK FROM THEM IN CASH WOULD HAVE BEEN UTI LISED FOR MAKING PAYMENT TO THE GREY MARKET SUPPLIERS WHO MIGHT HAVE SUPPLIED THE GOODS TO THE ASSESSEE. ON THE BASIS OF HER AFORESAID DELIBERATIONS, IT WAS OBSERVED BY THE A.O THAT THE ASSESSEE BY PURCHASING THE GOODS FROM THE OPEN/GREY MARKET WOULD HAVE GAINED BY PROCURING THE SAME AT A LOW/DISCOUNTED RATE. 5. AS THE ASSESSEE WAS UNABLE TO IMPRESS UPON TH E A.O THAT HE HAD MADE GENUINE PURCHASES FROM THE ABOVE MENTIONED PARTIES, THEREFORE, HE IN ORDER TO PURCHASE PEACE OF MIND AND TO AVOID PROLONGED AND STRENUOUS LITIGATIONS AGREED TO OFFER SOME DISALLOWANCE IN RESPECT OF THE PURCHASES UNDER CONSIDERATION. THE A.O AFTER CATEGORICALLY REFERRING TO AND TAKING COGNIZANCE OF THE EVIDENCE PRODUCED BY THE ASSESSEE DURING THE COURSE OF THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS AND TAKING SUPPORT OF THE JUDGMENT OF THE HONBLE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. SIMIT P . SHETH (2013) 356 ITR 451 (GUJ) OBSERVED , THAT IT WOULD SUFFICE THE PURPOSE OF LAW AND WOULD BE FAIR AND JUSTICE IF THE ADDITION IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSEE BE RESTRICTED BY APPLYING THE AVERAGE OF THE G.P RATE S FOR THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION AND THE P RECEDING TWO YEARS TO THE VALUE OF THE PURCHASES UNDER CONSIDERATION. ON THE BASIS OF HER AFORESAID OBSERVATIONS THE A.O ESTIMAT ED THE AVERAGE GROSS PROFIT RATE OF THE ASSESSEE AT 1.87% I.E ON THE BASIS OF THAT FOR THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION AND THOSE FO R THE IMMEDIATELY LAST TWO PRECEDING YEARS VIZ. A.Y 2010 - 11 (3.22%), A.Y 2009 - 10 (1.33%) AND A.Y 2008 - 09 (1.07%) , AND APPLYING THE SAME TO THE VALUE OF THE PURCHASES CLAIMED BY THE ASSESSEE TO HAVE BEEN MADE FROM THE AFOREMENTIONED PARTIES MADE AN ADDITION OF RS. 3,68,985/ - IN HIS HANDS. SAURABH SURYAKANT MEHTA VS. PR. CIT - 20, MUMBAI ITA NO. 3096/MUM/2018 A.Y 2010 - 11 5 6. AFTER THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS HAD CULMINATED , THE PR. CIT CALLED FOR THE RECORDS OF THE ASSESSEE FOR THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION. ON A PERUSAL OF THE RECORDS, IT WAS OBSERVED BY THE PR. CIT THAT ON THE BASIS OF THE INFORMATION RECEIVED FROM THE SALES TAX AUTHORITIES THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD TAKEN ACCOMMODATION ENTRIES FOR BOGUS PURCHASES FROM CERTAIN HAWALA DEALERS, HIS CASE WAS REOPENED . THE PR. CIT WAS OF THE VIEW THAT THE A.O WHILE FRAMING THE ASSESSMENT HAD THOU GH OBSERVED THAT THE ASSESSEE AFTER RECEIVING THE MONEY BACK FROM THE HAWALA ENTRY PROVIDERS WOULD HAVE PAID IN CASH TO THE GREY MARKET SUPPLIERS, BUT THEREAFTER IN CONTRADICTION OF HER SAID OBSERVATION SHE HAD CONCLUDED THAT THE PAYMENTS FOR THE GOODS UND ER CONSIDERATION WERE INVARIABLY MADE BY WAY OF ACCOUNT PAYEE CHEQUES. ON THE BASIS OF HIS AFORESAID OBSERVATIONS THE PR. CIT WAS OF THE VIEW THAT TRANSACTION MADE BY THE ASSESSEE WITH THE AFOREMENTIONED PARTIES WAS COVERED BY SEC. 69C OF THE I.T ACT AND T HE ENTIRE AMOUNT OF RS. 1,97,31,785/ - CORRESPONDING TO THE PURCHASES CLAIMED BY THE ASSESSEE TO HAVE BEEN MADE FROM THE AFOREMENTIONED NON - EXISTENT/BOGUS ENTRY PROVIDER PARTIES WAS LIABLE TO BE DISALLOWED AS AN UNEXPLAINED EXPENDITURE. IN THE BACKDROP OF H IS AFORESAID DELIBERATIONS THE PR. CIT H ELD THE ORDER PASSED BY THE A.O UNDER SEC. 143(3) R.W.S 147, DATED 23.03.2016 AS ERRONEOUS AND PREJUDICIAL TO THE INTEREST OF THE REVENUE AND RESTORED THE MATTER TO THE FILE OF THE A.O , WITH A DIRECTION TO EXAMINE TH E CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE ON MERITS ON THE BASIS OF EVIDENCE MADE AVAILABLE BY HIM AS WELL AS THE ENQUIRIES CONDUCTED. 7. AGGRIEVED, THE ASSESSEE HAS ASSAILED THE ORDER PASSED BY THE PR. CIT UNDER SEC. 263 IN APPEAL BEFORE US. THE LD. AUTHORISED REPRESENT ATIVE (FOR SHORT A.R) FOR THE ASSESSEE DR. K. SHVIARAM, SENIOR ADVOCATE, AT THE VERY OUTSET OF THE HEARING OF THE APPEAL SUBMITTED THAT THE PR. CIT HAD WRONGLY ASSUMED JURISDICTION UNDER SEC. 263 OF SAURABH SURYAKANT MEHTA VS. PR. CIT - 20, MUMBAI ITA NO. 3096/MUM/2018 A.Y 2010 - 11 6 THE I.T ACT AND REVISED THE ORDER PASSED BY THE A.O UND ER SEC. 143(3) R.W.S 147, DATED 23.03.2016. THE LD. A.R SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS A SCRAP DEALER. THE LD. A.R TOOK US THROUGH THE FACT S OF THE CASE AND SUBMITTED THAT THE A.O FAILING TO CONCLUSIVELY DISPROVE THE GENUINENESS OF THE PURCHASES MADE BY T HE ASSESSEE FROM THE AFOREMENTIONED PARTIES , HAD THUS ONLY MADE AN ESTIMATED ADDITION ON THE BASIS OF THE AVERAGE GROSS PROFIT RATES FOR THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION AND THAT OF THE PRECEDING TWO YEARS. THE LD. A.R IN SUPPORT OF HIS CONTENTION THAT THE PR. CIT COULD NOT HAVE DISLODGED THE ORDER PASSED BY THE A.O UNDER SEC. 143(3) R.W.S 147, RELIED ON THE CERTAIN JUDICIAL PRONOUNCEMENTS WHEREIN IDENTICAL FACTS AS STATED BY HIM WERE INVOLV ED : (I). MANOJ ISHWAR CHOUDHARY VS . PCIT (ITA NO. 1788/MUM/2016; DATED 27.10.2017). (II). HOTEL MAYFAIR PVT. LTD. VS. CIT (ITA NO. 1921/MUM/2015; DATED 01.07.2015). (III). M/S ASHISH GEMS VS. PR. CIT (ITA NO. 3531/MUM/2017; DATED 06.12.2017) . PER CONTRA, THE LD. DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE (FOR SHORT D.R) SUPPORTED THE ORDER OF THE PR. CIT. 8. WE HAVE HEARD THE AUTHORISED REPRESENTATIVES FOR BOTH THE PARTIES, PERUSED THE ORDERS OF THE LOWER AUTHORITIES AND THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. O N A PERUSAL OF THE ORDER PASSED BY THE A.O UNDER SEC. 143(3) R.W.S 147, DATED 23.03.2016, IT STANDS REVEALED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD IN THE COURSE OF THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS DULY SUBSTANTIATED THAT THE GOODS UNDER CONSIDERATION WERE ACTUALLY PURCHASED AND THEREAFTER SOLD BY HIM DURING THE YEAR ITSELF . AS OBSERVED BY US HEREINABOVE, THE ASSESSEE HAD PROVED TO THE HILT THAT SAURABH SURYAKANT MEHTA VS. PR. CIT - 20, MUMBAI ITA NO. 3096/MUM/2018 A.Y 2010 - 11 7 THE GOODS UNDER CONSIDERATION WERE FACTUALLY PURCHASED BY CORRELATING THE CORRESPONDING SALES MADE AGAINST THE SAME. APART THEREFROM, TH E ASSESSEE IN ORDER TO PROVE THE PURCHASES OF THE GOODS UNDER CONSIDERATION HAD ALSO PRODUCED BEFORE THE A.O THE DETAILED QUANTITATIVE AND VALUE - WISE STOCK REGISTER THAT WAS REGULARLY MAINTAINED BY HIM FOR EACH ITEM OF GOODS PURCHASED AND SOLD DURING THE Y EAR , AND HAD ALSO IDENTIFIED THE QUANTITY AND VALUE - WISE DISPOSAL OF THE PURCHASES UNDER CONSIDERATION DURING THE YEAR. ADMITTEDLY, THE FACT THAT THE GOODS UNDER CONSIDERATION WERE PURCHASED BY THE ASSESSEE WAS ESTABLISHED BY THE ASSESSEE BEFORE THE A.O BE YOND ANY SCOPE OF DOUBT. RATHER, ON A PERUSAL OF THE SUBSTANTIAL DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE THAT WAS PLACED ON RECORD BY THE ASSESSEE IN THE COURSE OF THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS , IT CAN SAFELY BE CONCLUDED THAT THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE OF HAVING MADE THE PURCHASES FROM THE AFOREMENTIONED PARTIES ALSO COULD NOT BE SUCCESSFULLY DISPROVED OR NEGATED BY THE A.O , MUCH THE LESS ON THE BASIS OF ANY IRREFUTABLE DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE. AS A MATTER OF FACT, THE A.O BY TURNING A BLIND EYE TO THE EXHAUSTIVE MATERIAL SUPPORTING THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE THAT HE HAD MADE GENUINE PURCHASES FROM THE AFOREMENTIONED PARTIES, HAD RATHER BASED HER ADVERSE INFERENCES SOLELY ON THE GROUND THAT THE ASSESS EE HAD FAILED TO PLACE ON RECORD THE CONFIRMATIONS OF THE AFORE SAID PARTIES. APART THEREFROM, NO MATERIAL WAS PLACED ON RECORD BY THE A.O WHICH COULD DISPROVE TO THE HILT THE VERACITY OF THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE THAT HE HAD MADE GENUINE PURCHASES FROM THE AFOREMENTIONED PARTIES. BE THAT AS IT MAY, IN OUR CONSIDERED VIEW THOUGH THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE OF HAVING MADE PURCHASES FROM THE AFOREMENTIONED PARTIES HAD REMAINED UNPROVED, BUT IN NO WAY THE SAME CAN BE HELD TO BE A DISPROVED CLAIM. 9. INSOFAR, THE INITIAL UNSUBSTANTIATED OBSERVATION OF THE A.O THAT IT COULD LOGICALLY BE INFERRED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD PURCHASED THE GOODS SAURABH SURYAKANT MEHTA VS. PR. CIT - 20, MUMBAI ITA NO. 3096/MUM/2018 A.Y 2010 - 11 8 FROM THE GREY MARKET AND OBTAINED BILLS FROM THE HAWALA DEALERS, AND THE MONEY RECEIVED BACK FROM THE SAID HAWALA DEALERS IN CASH WERE PAID TO THE GREY MARKET SUPPLIERS WHO MIGHT HAVE SUPPLIED THOSE GOODS TO THE ASSESSEE, THE SAME BEING BEREFT OF ANY SUPPORTING MATERIAL DOES NOT INSPIRE ANY CONFIDENCE. HOWEVER, THE FACT AS IT SO REMAINS IS THAT NO MATERIAL HAD EVER BEEN PLACED ON REC ORD BY THE REVENUE WHICH COULD IRREFUTABLY PROVE THE FALSITY OF THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE OF HAVING MADE PURCHASES FROM THE AFOREMENTIONED PARTIES. RATHER, THE ASSESSEE HAD NEVER GIVEN UP HIS CLAIM THAT HE HAD MADE GENUINE PURCHASES FROM THE AFOREMENTIONED PARTIES , AND AS OBSERVED BY THE A.O HAD ONLY IN ORDER TO PURCHASE PEACE OF MIND AND TO AVOID PROLONGED AND STRENUOUS LITIGATION AGREED FOR A PART DISALLOWANCE OUT OF THE PURCHASES UNDER CONSIDERATION. IN OUR CONSIDERED VIEW, THOUGH THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE OF HAVING MADE THE PURCHASES FROM THE AFOREMENTIONED PARTIES COULD NOT BE SUBSTANTIATED BY HIM TO THE SATISFACTION OF THE A.O AND HAD THUS REMAINED UNPROVED , BUT THEN WE CANNOT LOOSE SIGHT OF THE FACT THAT THE GENUINENESS OF THE S AID CLAIM ALSO HAD NOT BEEN DISPROVED BY THE REVENUE. WE ARE OF A STRONG CONVICTION THAT UNLESS THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE OF HAVING MADE THE PURCHASES FROM THE AFOREMENTIONED PARTIES WAS CONCLUSIVELY PROVED BY THE REVENUE TO BE FALSE, NO ADVERSE INFERENCE AS REGARDS THE PAYMENTS MADE BY HIM BY CHEQUES FOR PURCHASE OF THE GOODS UNDER CONSIDERATION COULD HAVE JUSTIFIABLY BE EN DRAWN . IN THE BACKDROP OF OUR AFORESAID DELIBERATIONS, WE ARE OF THE CONSIDERED VIEW THAT THE A.O AFTER CONSIDERING THE FACTS OF THE CA SE AND THE DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE MADE AVAILABLE ON RECORD BY THE ASSESSEE DURING THE COURSE OF THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS HAD ARRIVED AT A POSSIBLE AND A PLAUSIBLE VIEW BY RESTRICTING THE ADDITION AS REGARDS THE UNPROVED PURCHASES UNDER CONSIDERATION ON AN ESTIMATED BASIS , AND NOT DRAWING ADVERSE INFERENCES AS REGARDS THE SOURCE OF THE PURCHASES UNDER CONSIDERATION SAURABH SURYAKANT MEHTA VS. PR. CIT - 20, MUMBAI ITA NO. 3096/MUM/2018 A.Y 2010 - 11 9 AS STOOD RECORDED IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS OF THE ASSESSEE . BEFORE PARTING, WE MAY HEREIN OBSERVE THAT THE PLAUSIBILITY OF THE VIEW ARRIVED AT BY THE A.O THAT THE ADDITION IN THE CASE BEFORE HER COULD JUSTIFIABLY BE WORKED OUT ON AN ESTIMATE BASIS IS ALSO SUPPLEMENTED BY THE F ACT THAT SHE HAD WHILE SO CONCLUDING RELIED ON THE JUDGMENT OF THE HONBLE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. SIMIT P. SHETH (2013) 356 ITR 451 (GUJ) , WHEREIN IDENTICAL FACTS WERE INVOLVED. THE AFORESAID JUDGMENT OF THE HONBLE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT IN THE CASE OF SIMIT P. SHETH (SUPRA) HAD THEREAFTER BEEN FOLLOWED IN A HOST OF ORDERS BY THE COORDINATE BENCHES OF THE TRIBUNAL. WE THUS ARE OF THE CONSIDERED VIEW THAT AS THE A.O HAD TAKEN A POSSIBLE AND A PLAUSIBLE VIEW AND NOT DRAWN ANY ADVERSE INFERENCE AS REGARDS THE DULY RECORDED SOURCE OF THE GOODS PURCHASED BY THE ASSESSEE , THEREFORE, THE PR. CIT HA D WRONGLY ASSUMED JURISDICTION UNDER SEC. 263 AND REVISED THE ORDER PASSED BY THE A.O UNDER SEC. 143(3) R.W.S 147, DATED 23.03.2016. 10. WE THUS NOT BEING PERSUADED TO SUBSCRIBE TO THE OBSERVATIONS OF THE PR. CIT THAT THE ORDER PASSED BY THE A.O IS BOTH ER RONEOUS AND PREJUDICIAL TO THE INTEREST OF THE REVENUE, VACATE HIS ORDER AND UPHOLD THE ORDER PASSED BY THE A.O UNDER SEC. 143(3) R.W.S 147, DATED 323.03.2016. 11. THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED. ORDER PRONOUNCED ON 20 /12/2018 SD/ - SD/ - ( B.R BASKARAN) (RAVISH SOOD) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER MUMBAI ; 20 . 12.2018 PS. ROHIT SAURABH SURYAKANT MEHTA VS. PR. CIT - 20, MUMBAI ITA NO. 3096/MUM/2018 A.Y 2010 - 11 10 / COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. / THE APPELLANT 2. / THE RESPONDENT. 3. ( ) / THE CIT(A) - 4. / CIT 5. , , / DR, ITAT, MUMBAI 6. / GUARD FILE . //TRUE COPY// / BY ORDER, / (DY./ASSTT. REGISTRAR) , / ITAT, MUMBAI