GHISULAL HAMERMAL AND COMPANY, MUMBAI V. INCOME TAX OFFICER, 19(2)(3), MUMBAI

ITA 4295/MUM/2017

• Counselvise Citation: [2018] 124 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 7306 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 3 month(s) 22 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 01-10-2018
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: G
• Assessment Year: 2011-2012
• Appeal Filed On: 09-06-2017
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: NISHANT SAMAIYA
• Keywords: Bogus purchase

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCHES G, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI B R BASKARAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER & SHRI RAVISH SOOD, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA NO.4295/MUM/2017 ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2011-12 GHISULAL HAMERMAL AND COMPANY, 14, 1 ST FLOOR, CARPENTER STREET, NULL BAZAR, MUMBAI 400 004. PAN AAAFG0686J VS. ITO 19(2)(3), MUMBAI (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY : SHRI PIYUSH CHHAJED RESPONDENT BY : SHRI NISHANT SAMAIYA DATE OF HEARING : 01 . 1 0 .201 8 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 0 1 .10.2018 O R D E R THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS DIRECTED AGAINS T THE ORDER, DATED 21.03.2017, PASSED BY LD CIT(A)-29, MUMBAI, AND IT RELATES TO THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2011-12. 2. THE ASSESSEE IS AGGRIEVED BY THE DECISION OF THE LEARNED CIT(A) IN PARTIALLY CONFIRMING THE ADDITION RELATING TO ALLEG ED BOGUS PURCHASES MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. 3. THE LEARNED AR SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSING OFFI CER HAS DISALLOWED 12.5% OF THE VALUE OF ALLEGED BOGUS PURCHASES. ON THE BASIS OF INFORMATION RECEIVED FROM SALES TAX DEPARTMENT THAT CERTAIN PAR TIES ARE INDULGING IN PROVIDING ONLY ACCOMMODATION BILLS WITHOUT ACTUALLY SUPPLYING MATERIALS, THE AO HELD THAT THE PURCHASES MADE FROM PARTIES IDENTI FIED BY THE SALES TAX DEPARTMENT AS HAWALA DEALERS ARE BOGUS IN NATURE. THE LEARNED CIT(A) PARTLY ALLOWED THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE BY DIRECTING THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO ITA NO.4295/MUM/2017 GHISULAL HAMERMAL AND COMPANY. 2 REDUCE THE PROFIT ALREADY DECLARED BY THE ASSESSEE ON THOSE PURCHASES. THE LEARNED AR SUBMITTED THAT AN IDENTICAL ISSUE WAS CO NSIDERED BY THE CO- ORDINATE BENCH IN ASSESSEES OWN CASE FOR A.Y. 2010 -11 AND THE TRIBUNAL, VIDE ITS ORDER DATED 26.12.2017 PASSED IN ITA NO. 4 276/MUM/2017, HAS UPHELD IDENTICAL VIEW TAKEN BY THE LEARNED CIT(A) I N AY 2010-11. 4. WE HEARD THE LEARNED DR AND PERUSED THE RECORD. THE LD A.R HAS STATED THAT THE LD CIT(A) HAS PASSED IDENTICAL ORDE R GRANTING PARTIAL RELIEF TO THE ASSESSEE IN AY 2010-11. IT WAS FURTHER STATED THE CO-ORDINATE BENCH HAS UPHELD THE VIEW TAKEN BY THE LEARNED CIT(A) IN ASSE SSEES CASE FOR A.Y. 2010- 11. THE ASSESSEE FURNISHED A COPY OF ORDER PASSED BY THE CO-ORDINATE BENCH IN AY 2010-11 AND WE NOTICE THAT THE TRIBUNAL HAS U PHELD THE IDENTICAL VIEW TAKEN BY THE LD CIT(A) IN THAT YEAR. FOLLOWING THE SAME, WE UPHOLD THE ORDER PASSED BY THE LEARNED CIT(A) IN THIS YEAR ALS O. 5. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON THIS DAY OF 1 ST OCTOBER 2018 SD/- SD/- (RAVISH SOOD) (B R BASKARAN) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER MUMBAI, DATED : 1 ST OCTOBER, 2018. 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, G BENCH, ITAT, MUMBAI BY ORDER //TRUE COPY// (ASSISTANT REGISTRAR) INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, MUMBAI