SMT VIMAL MAHADEV GIRI, MUMBAI V. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 19(3)(5), MUMBAI

ITA 4230/MUM/2018

• Counselvise Citation: [2019] 117 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 1731 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 11 month(s) 22 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 10-06-2019
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Assessment Year: 2010-2011
• Appeal Filed On: 18-06-2018
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: CHAITANYA ANJARIA
• Keywords: Bogus purchase
• Section: 133(6); 2

Judgement Text

T HE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL SMC BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI SHAMIM YAHYA ( A M) I.T.A. NO. 4230 /MUM/ 201 8 (ASSESSMENT YEAR 20 10 - 11 ) SMT. VIMAL MAHADEV GIRI 9/10,RAJWANTI MANSION KHETWADI, 4 TH LANE KHETWADI, MUMBAI - 400004. PAN : AACPG9974H V S . IT O WARD 19(3)(5) MUMBAI ( APPELLANT ) ( RESPONDENT ) ASSESSEE BY SHRI DEVENDRA JAIN DEPARTMENT BY SHRI CHAITANYA ANJARIA DATE OF HEARING 10.6 . 201 9 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT 10 . 6 . 201 9 O R D E R THIS APPEAL BY THE ASSESSEE IS DIRECTED AGAINS T THE ORDER OF LEARNED CIT(A) DATED 18.3.2016 AND PERTAINS TO A.Y. 2010 - 11. 2. ISSUE RAISED IS THAT LEARNED CIT(A) ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE ADDITION OF PURCHASES AMOUNTING TO RS. 8,48,276/ - TREATING THEM AS BOGUS EXPENSE . 3. I N THIS CASE ADDITION WAS MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER ON THE GROUND THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS TAKEN BOGUS PURCHASES FROM THREE PARTIES TOTALING TO RS. 2,48,276/ - . NOTICES WERE ISSUED U/S. 133(6) TO THESE PARTIES BUT THE SAME WERE RETURNED. THE ASSESSEE EXPLAINED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS RECEIVED SALES FROM THE SUPPLIE S TO THE GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENT. HOWEVER, AUTHORITIES BELOW COULD NOT ACCEPT THE ASSESSEES SUBMISSION AND NON - COMPLIANCE OF NOTICES U/S. 133(6) WAS CITED AS A REASON FOR MAKING 100% DISALLOWANCE. AGAINST THE ABOVE ORDER, AS SESSEE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE THE ITAT. 4. I HAVE HEARD BOTH THE COUNSEL AND PERUSED THE RECORDS. LEARNED COUNSEL OF THE ASSESSEE PRAYED THAT SALES HAVE NOT BEEN DOUBTED IN THIS CASE AND DISALLOWANCE HAS SOLELY MADE ON THE GROUND OF FAILURE TO PRODUCE THE 2 SU PPLIERS. HENCE, LEARNED COUNSEL PRAYED THAT DISALLOWANCE IN THIS REGARD SHOULD BE LIMITED TO 12.5% OF THE SAID PURCHASE AS DONE BY THE ITAT IN SEVERAL CASES IN THIS REGARD. 5. LEARNED DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE DID NOT HAVE ANY OBJECTION TO THIS PROPOSI TION. 6. UPON CAREFUL CONSIDERATION, I DIRECT THAT THE DISALLOWANCE IN THIS CASE SHOULD BE LIMITED TO 12.5% OF THE BOGUS PURCHASES. 7. IN THE RESULT, APPEAL BY THE ASSESSEE IS PARTLY ALLOWED. ORDER HAS BE EN PRONOUNCED IN THE COURT ON 10 . 6 . 201 9 . SD/ - (SH A MIM YAHYA ) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER MUMBAI ; DATED : 10 / 6 / 20 1 9 COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. THE APPELLANT 2. THE RESPONDENT 3. THE CI T(A) 4. CIT 5. DR, ITAT, MUMBAI 6. GUARD FILE. BY ORDER, //TRUE COPY// ( ASSISTANT REGISTRAR ) PS ITAT, MUMBAI