ANIL POPATLAL UDESHI, MUMBAI V. ITO 19(1)(1), MUMBAI

ITA 4252/MUM/2018

• Counselvise Citation: [2019] 117 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 1733 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 11 month(s) 21 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 10-06-2019
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Assessment Year: 2011-2012
• Appeal Filed On: 19-06-2018
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: CHAITANYA ANJARIA
• Assessee Lawyers: SYAM C AGRAWAL
• Keywords: Bogus purchase

Judgement Text

T HE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL SMC BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI SHAMIM YAHYA ( A M) I.T.A. NO. 4252 /MUM/ 201 8 (ASSESSMENT YEAR 20 11 - 12 ) ANIL POPATLAL UDESHI BIRLA MANSION NO. 2 DR.DD SATHE MARG PRARTHANA SAMAJ MUMBAI - 400 004. PAN : AAAPU1762D V S . IT O 19(1)(1) 2 ND FLOOR MATRU MANDIR MUMBAI - 400 007. ( APPELLANT ) ( RESPONDENT ) ASSESSEE BY SHRI SYAM C. AGRAWAL 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 TH E ASSESSEE IS DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER OF LEARNED CIT(A) DATED 15.3.2018 AND PERTAINS TO A.Y. 2011 - 12. 2. ISSUE RAISED IS THAT LEARNED CIT(A) ERRED IN CONFIRMING 12.5% DISALLOWANCE ON ACCOUNT OF SUSPICIOUS PURCHASE. 3. BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT DISALLOWANCE IN THIS CASE WAS MADE ON ACCOUNT OF BOGUS PURCHASE WHICH WAS MADE @ 15%. LEARNED CIT(A) ON ASSESSEES APPEAL REDUCED THE SAME TO 12.5%. AGAINST THIS ORDER, ASSESSEE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE ITAT. 4. I HAVE HEARD BOTH THE COUNSEL AND PERUSED THE RE CORD. LEARNED COUNSEL OF THE ASSESSEE CONTENDED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS ALREADY SHOWN GROSS PROFIT MARGIN OF 8.37% WHICH IS DULY REFLECTED IN THE TAX AUDIT REPORT SUBMITTED IN PAGE NO. 3 4 OF THE PAPER BOOK. HENCE, LEARNED COUNSEL SUBMITTED THAT DISALLOWANCE ON ACCOUNT OF PURCHASE WHICH HAS BEEN MADE IN THIS CASE @ 2 12.5% SHOULD BE REDUCED TO GIVE EFFECT OF THE PROFIT ALREADY DISCLOSED BY THE ASSESSEE ON THE IMPUGNED PURCHASE. 5. UPON CAREFUL CONSIDERATION, I FIND CONSIDERABLE COGENCY IN THE SUBMISSION OF LEA RNED COUNSEL. ADDITION FOR BOGUS PURCHASE HAS BEEN DONE ON ACCOUNT OF NON - PRODUCTION OF SUPPLIERS. NECESSARY PURCHASE VOUCHERS ARE ALREADY AVAILABLE. SALES HAVE NOT BEEN DOUBTED. IN THESE CIRCUMSTANCES, IN SEVERAL CASE LAWS IT HAS BEEN HELD THAT 12.5% DISA LLOWANCE OUT OF BOGUS PURCHASES SHOULD BE DONE. HOWEVER, SINCE ASSESSEE HAS ALREADY SHOWN 8.37% OF THE GROSS PROFIT PURCHASE, FURTHER ADDITION OF 12.5% WITHOUT DEDUCTION OF GROSS PROFIT ALREADY DISCLOSED WOULD AMOUNT TO DOUBLE PREJUDICE, WHICH IS NOT SUSTA INABLE IN LAW. ACCORDINGLY, I DIRECT THAT GROSS PROFIT HAS ALREADY SHOWN AS ABOVE IS REQUIRED TO BE DEDUCTED FROM @ 12.5% AND RESULTANT AMOUNT IS TO BE DELETED. 6. IN THE RESULT, ASSESSEES APPEAL 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. TH E RESPONDENT 3. THE CIT(A) 4. CIT 5. DR, ITAT, MUMBAI 6. GUARD FILE. BY ORDER, //TRUE COPY// ( ASSISTANT REGISTRAR ) PS ITAT, MUMBAI