BHAVANA BHUPENDRA JOSHI, MUMBAI V. ITO 18(1)(2), MUMBAI

ITA 470/MUM/2017

• Counselvise Citation: [2017] 126 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 7845 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 11 month(s) 5 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 26-12-2017
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Assessment Year: 2009-2010
• Appeal Filed On: 20-01-2017
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: RAM TIWARI
• Keywords: Reopening of assessment; Bogus purchase; Onus to prove
• Section: 147; 148; 144

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL SMC , BENCH MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI R.C.SHARMA, AM ITA NO. 470 / MUM/20 17 ( ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2009 - 10 ) SMT. BHAVANA BHUPENDRA JOSHI LEGAL HEIR OF LATE SHRI BHUPENDRA JOSHI, 1 ST FLOOR R.NO. 15A, 342/36, ANANTWADI BHULESH WAR, MUMBAI 400 002 VS. ITO 18(1)(2) MUMBAI PAN/GIR NO. AEGPJ0318C APPELLANT ) .. RESPONDENT ) ITA NO. 471/ MUM/20 17 ( ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2009 - 10 ) SHRI BHARAT KUMAR N JOSHI 1 ST FLOOR, 32/36, ANANTWADI BHULESHWAR, MUMBAI 400 002 VS. ITO 18(1)(2) MUMBAI PAN/GIR NO. A BOPJ6183A APPELLANT ) .. RESPONDENT ) ASSESSEE BY SHRI SANJAY PARIKH REVENUE BY SHRI RAM TIWARI DATE OF HEARING 27 / 09 /201 7 DATE OF PRONOUNCEME NT 26 / 12 /201 7 / O R D E R PER R .C.SHARMA (A.M) : THESE ARE THE APPEALS FILED BY ASSESSEE AGAINST THE ORDER OF CIT(A) - 29, MUMBAI DATED 05/10/2016 FOR A.Y.2009 - 10 IN THE MATTER OF ORDER PASSED U/S.144 R.W.S. 147 OF THE IT ACT. 2.THE GROUNDS TAKEN BY THE ASSESSEE IN ITA NO.470/MUM/2017 A RE AS UNDER: - A) REOPENING OF ASSESSMENT 1) THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) - 29, MUMBAI [CIT(A)] ERRED ON FACTS AND IN LAW IN HOLDING THAT THE ITA NO. 470/MUM/2017 & 471/MUM/2017 SMT. BHAVANA BHUPENDRA JOSHI & SHRI BHARAT KUMAR N JOSHI 2 INCOME TAX OFFICER - 18(1)(2), MUMBAI (AO) WAS JUSTIFIED IN REOPENING THE ASSESSMENT U/S. 147. 2) THE CIT(A) ERRED ON FACTS AND IN LAW IN HOLDING THAT THE REOPENING OF ASSESSMENT BY THE AO BY ISSUING A NOTICE U/S. 148 IN THE NAME OF LATE SHRI BHUPENDRA JOSHI WAS VALID AND AS PER LAW. 3) THE APPELLANT PRAYS THAT THE REOPENING OF ASSESSMENT U/S. 147 MAY BE HELD TO BE BAD IN LAW AND THE CONSEQUENTIAL ORDER ASSESSING THE INCOME OF THE APPELLANT U/S. 144 R.W.S. 147 AT RS. 38,32,045/ - MAY BE ANNULLED. B) ESTIMATING PROFIT ON ALLEGED BOGUS PURCHASES 4) THE LEARNED CIT(A) ERRED ON FACTS AND IN LAW IN DIRECTING THE AO TO ESTIMATE THE GROSS PROFIT AT 10% OF THE ALLEGED BOGUS PURCHASES OF RS. 3,06,56,362/ - AS REDUCED BY THE GROSS PROFIT ALREADY DECLARED BY THE APPELLANT ON THESE PURCHASES. 5) THE LEARNED CIT(A) ERRED I N NOT GIVING THE BASIS ON WHICH SHE DIRECTED THE AO TO ESTIMATE THE GROSS PROFIT AT 10% OF THE ALLEGED BOGUS PURCHASES. 6) THE APPELLANT PRAYS THAT THE ADDITION MADE BY THE AO ON ACCOUNT OF GROSS PROFIT ON THE ALLEGED BOGUS PURCHASES AND AS CONFIRME D BY THE CIT(A) @ 10% (AS REDUCED BY THE GROSS PROFIT DECLARED BY THE APPELLANT ON THESE PURCHASES) MAY BE DELETED IN TOTO. C) GENERAL 7) THE ABOVE GROUNDS OF APPEAL ARE WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO ONE ANOTHER AND THE APPELLANT CRAVES LEAVE TO ADD, A LTER, AMEND, DELETE OR MODIFY ANY OF THE ABOVE GROUNDS OF APPEAL. 3. RIVAL CONTENTIONS HAVE BEEN HEARD AND RECORD PERUSED. 4. IN THIS CASE, ASSESSMENT WAS REOPENED ON THE BASIS OF INFORMATION FROM SALES TAX DEPARTMENT AND INVESTIGATION WING OF THE INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT. AFTER REOPENING, AO MADE ADDITION WITH REGARD TO THE PROFIT EMBEDDED IN THE BOGUS PURCHASES SO MADE BY THE ASSESSEE AT 12.5%. ITA NO. 470/MUM/2017 & 471/MUM/2017 SMT. BHAVANA BHUPENDRA JOSHI & SHRI BHARAT KUMAR N JOSHI 3 5. BEFORE THE CIT(A), ASSESSEE CHALLENGED REOPENING AS WELL AS MERIT OF THE ADDITION UPHELD BY THE AO. 6. I HAVE CONSIDERED RIVAL CONTENTIONS AND CAREFULLY GONE THROUGH THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW AND FOUND THAT REOPENING WAS UPHELD BY CIT(A) AFTER OBSERVING AS UNDER: - THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE LD. COUNSEL HAVE BEEN CAREFULLY CONSIDERED BUT THERE IS NO FORCE IN THE ARGUMENT. THE AO HAD ISSUED .2 NOTICE U/S.148 IN THE NAME OF SHRI. BHUPENDRA IM. JOSHI AS HE HAD NO INFORMATION ABOUT HIS DEATH. THE NOTICE WAS ISSUED ON 21.3.2014 WHEREAS THE APPELLANT SHRI. BHUPENDRA JOSHI EXPIRED ON 2.7.2011. THE DATE OF DEATH AS PER THE DEATH CERTIFICATE SUBMITTED BY THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE IS 2.7.2011 WHEREAS IN THE ENTIRE SUBMISSIONS, HE HAD MENTIONED THAT THE DATE OF DEATH IS 2.2.2011. THERE IS A TIME LAG OF ALMOST 3 YEARS BETWEEN HIS DEATH AND ISSUE OF NOTICE U/S.148. THE LEGAL HEIRS OF SHRI. BHUPENDRA JOSHI HAVE NOT BOTHERED TO INFORM THE DEPARTMENT ABOUT THE DEATH. THE AO CANNOT BE BLAMED FOR ISSUING THE NOTICE IN THE NAME OF SHRI. BHUPENDRA JOSHI AS HE HAD NO INFORMATION ABOUT HIS DEAT H. IN RESPONSE TO NOTICE U/S.148 WHICH WAS SERVED ON THE LEGAL HEIR OF SHRI. BHUPENDRA JOSHI I.E MRS. BHAVANA JOSHI, WIFE OF SHRI. BHUPENDRA JOSHI. A REPLY WAS FILED BY HER INFORMING THE AO ABOUT HER HUSBAND'S DEATH. THIS WAS INFORMED VIDE HER LETTER DATED 2.4.2014. IT IS SURPRISING TO NOTE THAT IN THE LETTER WRITTEN BY HER, SHE HAD MENTIONED THE DATE OF DEATH AS 1.7.2011. IT IS SURPRISING THAT EVEN ON A CERTAIN THING LIKE THE DATE OF DEATH, THERE IS CONFUSION AND THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE APPELLAN T, THE LEGAL HEIR AND THE DEATH CERTIFICATE ALL GIVE THREE DIFFERENT DATES. THE AO VIDE HIS LETTER DATED 21.5.2015 ADDRESSED TO SMT. BHAVANA JOSHI REQUESTED HER TO FILE THE RETURN IN RESPONSE TO NOTICE U/S.148. A COUPLE OF LETTERS SUBSEQUEN T TO THIS LETTER WERE ISSUED IN THE NAME OF BHUPENDRA JOSHI, THE DECEASED WHICH APPEARS TO BE A TYPOGRAPHICAL MISTAKE BY OVERSIGHT. THE AO WAS WELL AWARE THAT HE WAS CARRYING ON THE PROCEEDINGS AGAINST THE LEGAL HEIR AS IS EVIDENT FROM THE ASSESSMENT O RDER AND THE NOTICE OF DEMAND WHICH CARRY THE NAME OF SMT. BHAVANA JOSHI, LEGAL HEIR OF SHRI. BHUPENDRA JOSHI. THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE APPELLANT CANNOT TAKE THE PLEA THAT THE NOTICE IS INVALID BECAUSE THE AO HAD NO INFORMATION ABOUT THE DEATH OF SHR I. BHUPENDRA JOSHI. ONCE HE WAS GIVEN THE INFORMATION, HE CONTINUED THE PROCEEDINGS INITIATED AGAINST SHRI. BHUPENDRA JOSHI ON HIS LEGAL HEIR AND COMPLETED THE ASSESSMENT IN THE NAME OF THE LEGAL HEIR. THERE IS NO INFIRMITY IN THE ORDER. SIMPLE ERROR IN THE LETTERS WHICH WERE ADDRESSED TO BHUPENDRA JOSHI CANNOT INVALIDATE THE ASSESSMENT ORDER. AS COULD BE SEEN, THE LD, COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT EVEN MENTIONED THE DATE OF DEATH CORRECTLY. EVEN ITA NO. 470/MUM/2017 & 471/MUM/2017 SMT. BHAVANA BHUPENDRA JOSHI & SHRI BHARAT KUMAR N JOSHI 4 THE LEGAL HEIR HAS MENTIONED WRONG DATE OF DEATH. THESE ARE IGNORED AND OVERLOOKED AS THEY ARE TRIVIAL ERRORS AND WHAT IS IMPORTANT IS SUBSTANCE. THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE ALSO RELIED UPON A FEW JUDGMENTS TO SUPPORT HIS CASE. THE FIRST CASE IS CIT VS. SURENDRAKUMAR BHADANI 164 ITR 323, PATNA. T HE FACTS OF THIS CASE ARE DIFFERENT FROM THE PRESENT CASE AND INFACT THIS CASE IS IN FAVOUR OF REVENUE. THIS IS A CASE WHERE TWO PARALLEL PROCEEDINGS WERE INITIATED U/S,147 AND THE COURT HELD THAT THE PROCEEDINGS INITIATED AGAINST DECEASED PERSO N CANNOT BE HELD TO BE VALID, THEREFORE CONFIRMING THE LEGALITY OF THE SUBSEQUENT PROCEEDINGS. IN THIS CASE, THERE ARE NO PARALLEL PROCEEDINGS AND THE PROCEEDINGS INITIATED AGAINST SHRI. BHUPENDRA JOSHI IN THE ABSENCE OF INFORMATION ABOUT HIS DEATH ARE CONTINUED AGAINST HIS LEGAL HEIR. THE NEXT CASE ON WHICH THE LD. COUNSEL PLACED RELIANCE IS CIT VS. PRABHAVATI GUPA & OTHERS 231 ITR 188 (MP). AGAIN THE FACTS ARE DIFFERENT AS IN THIS CASE THE ASSESSEE DIED DURING THE ASSESSMENT PROCEE DINGS AND THE AO COMPLETED THE ASSESSMENT WITHOUT BRINGING THE LEGAL REPRESENTATIVE OF THE DECEASED ON RECORD. HOWEVER, IN THE INSTANT CASE, THE ASSESSMENT HAS BEEN COMPLETED IN THE NAME OF THE LEGAL HEIR. HE HAD ALSO QUOTED THE DECISION OF DELHI T RIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF ITO VS. LATE SHRI. SOMNATH MALOHTRA, ITA NO.519/MUM/2013. THE FACTS IN THIS CASE ARE NOT APPLICABLE TO THE PRESENT CASE AS IN THAT CASE, THE LEGAL HEIR OF THE ASSESSEE INFORMED THE AO THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD EXPIRED AND THE RETURN OF INCOME WAS ALSO FILED BY THE LEGAL HEIR ON 29.08.2003 ITSELF. HOWEVER, THE AO ISSUED NOTICE U/S.148 ON 31.3.2010 IN THE NAME OF THE DECEASED ASSESSEE. IN THE INSTANT CASE, THE AO HAD NO INFORMATION ABOUT THE DEATH OF THE ASSESSEE. THE ID. COUNSEL FOR THE APPELLANT ALSO PLACED RELIANCE IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. SURESH CHAND JAISWAL OF ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT. THIS IS ALSO NOT RELEVANT AS IN THIS CASE, THE NOTICE WAS NOT SERVED ON THE LEGAL REPRESENTATIVE OF THE ASSESSEE BUT ON THE MUNIM OF THE DECEASED A SSESSEE. THEREFORE THE COURT HELD THAT THE NOTICE WAS INVALID. IN THE PRESENT CASE, THE NOTICE HAS BEEN SERVED ON THE LEGAL HEIR AND FURTHER CORRESPONDENCE WAS MADE WITH THE LEGAL HEIR AND THE ASSESSMENT WAS ALSO COMPLETED IN THE NAME OF THE LEGAL HEIR. IT IS NOTEWORTHY TO MENTION THAT BOTH IN THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL AND THE STATEMENT OF FACTS, LATE SHRI. SHUPERIDRA JOSHI IS SHOWN AS THE APPELLANT AND NOT SMT. BHAVANA B. JOSHI AS LEGAL HEIR OF THE DECEASED ASSESSEE. BUT AN OBJECTION IS TAKEN WHEN THE AO DOE S IT. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE, THE PROCEEDINGS U/S.147 INITIATED BY THE AO ARE HELD TO BE LEGAL AND VALID. THESE GROUNDS OF APPEAL ARE DISMISSED . ITA NO. 470/MUM/2017 & 471/MUM/2017 SMT. BHAVANA BHUPENDRA JOSHI & SHRI BHARAT KUMAR N JOSHI 5 7. I FOUND THAT CIT(A) HAS DELIBERATED ON THE ISSUE THREADBARE AND AFTER DISCUSSING FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE , AND APPL YING VARIOUS JUDICIAL PRONOUNCEMENTS CAME TO THE CONCLUSION THAT OBJECTION TAKEN BY THE ASSESSEE IS NOT MAINTAINABLE. EVEN THE JUDICIAL PRONOUNCEMENTS CITED BY LEARNED AR DURIN G THE COURSE OF HEARING BEFORE ME ARE NOT APPLICABLE TO THE FACTS OF TH E CASE AS DISCUSSED BY THE CIT(A) AND PRODUCED HEREINABOVE. 8. NOTHING WAS PLACED ON RECORD BY LEARNED AR SO AS TO PERSUADE ME TO DEVIATE FROM THE CONCLUSION DRAWN BY CIT(A) WITH REGARD TO REOPENING OF ASSESSMENT. ACCORDINGLY, I UPHELD THE REOPENING. 9. WITH REGARD TO ESTIMATION OF PROFIT AT 12.5%, THE OBSERVATION OF AO WAS AS UNDER: - HOWEVER, AS THE FACT REMAINS THAT THERE CANNOT BE SALES WITHOUT PURCHASES, CONSIDERING THE FACTS OF THE CASE AS DISCUSSED IN THE PRECEDING PARAGRAPHS OF THE ORDER AND ALSO KEEPING IN MIND THE VARIOUS JUDICIAL PRONOUNCEMENTS ON THE ISSUE OF BOGUS PURCHASES INCLUDING THE GUJARAT HIGH COURT DECISIONS REPORTED IN 356 ITR 451 IN THE CASE OF CIT - I VS SIMIT P SHETH ARID THE DECISION REPORTED IN 355 ITR 290 IN THE CASE OF M/S. BHOLE NATH POLY FAB P LTD, I ESTIMATE THE EXTRA PROFIT ELEMENT OF THE ASSESSEE @12.5% IN THE ABOVE MENTIONED BOGUS PURCHASES AND MAKE ADDITION OF RS. 38,32,045/ - TO THE INCOME DECLARED BY THE ASSESSEE. 10. BY THE IMPUGNED ORDER, CIT(A) RESTRICTED THE ADDITION TO THE EXTENT OF 10% AFTER OBSERVING AS UNDER: - 6.3. IT IS THE CONTENTION OF THE LD. COUNSEL THAT THE PAYMENT FOR PURCHASES WERE MADE BY ACCOUNT PAYEE CHEQUES AND HENCE NO ADDITION COULD BE MADE ON ACCOUNT OF EXTRA PROFITS WITH RESPECT TO THE ALLEGED BOGUS PURCHASES. THE PRIMARY ONUS TO PROVE THE GENUINENESS OF THE PURCHASES IS ON THE ASSESSEE. IN THIS CASE, THE ASSESSEE HAS MISERABLY FAILED TO PROVE THE GENUINENESS AS THE LEGAL HEIR COULD NOT PRODUCE ANY INFORMATION WHAT SO EVER RE GARDING THE ITA NO. 470/MUM/2017 & 471/MUM/2017 SMT. BHAVANA BHUPENDRA JOSHI & SHRI BHARAT KUMAR N JOSHI 6 BUSINESS. ON THE OTHER HAND, THE SALES TAX AUTHORITIES HAD PASSED ON THE INFORMATION THAT ALL HAWALA ENTRY PROVIDERS HAVE ADMITTED BEFORE THE SALES - TAX DEPARTMENT THAT THEY HAVE NOT AFFECTED ANY SALES BUT HAVE MERELY PROVIDED ACCOMMODATION ENTR IES. THE AO THEREFORE CONCLUDED THAT THE PURCHASES MUST HAVE BEEN MADE FROM THE GREY MARKET AND THE ASSESSEE MUST HAVE BENEFITED BY PROFIT MARGIN. AS THE CORRESPONDING SALES ARE DISCUSSED, THE PURCHASES ARE BOUND TO BE THERE. THEREFORE, WHAT IS TO BE TAXED IS ON Y THE EXTRA PROFIT WHICH THE ASSESSEE WAS SUPPOSED TO HAVE MADE ON PURCHASES MADE FROM THE GREY MARKET. 6.3.1. THE HON'BLE IT AT, AHMEDABAD 'C' BENCH IN THE CASE OF VIJAY PROTEINS LTD. VS. ACIT 58 ITD 0428 HELD THAT IN SIMILAR CIRCUMSTANCES/ 25% OF THE PURCHASE PRICE ACCOUNTED THROUGH FICTITIOUS INVOICES HAS TO BE DISALLOWED. THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT IN THE CASE OF SANJAY OIL CAKES V/S CIT 316 ITR 0274 DEALT WITH SIMILAR CASE WHERE SOME OF THE ALLEGED SUPPLIERS WHO HAD ISSUED BILLS TO THE A SSESSEE WERE NOT GENUINE AS THEY WERE NOT TRACEABLE. THE GOODS MUST HAVE BEEN RECEIVED FROM OTHER PARTIES. THE LIKELIHOOD OF THE PURCHASE PRICE OF THESE ALLEGED PURCHASES BEING INFLATED COULD NOT BE RULED OUT AND THEREFORE THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT HAS UPHELD THE DECISION OF CIT(A) AND THE ITAT DISALLOWING 25% OF THE PAYMENTS MADE TO SUCH PARTIES. THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. SIMIT P. SHETH 356 ITR 0451 HELD THAT ONCE THE SALE IS ACCEPTED BY THE AO, THE VERY BASIS OF PURCHASES COULD NOT BE QUESTIONED. NOT THE ENTIRE PURCHASE PRICE COULD BE DISALLOWED BUT ONLY THE PROFIT ELEMENT EMBEDDED IN SUCH PURCHASES COULD BE ADDED TO THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE. THE ESTIMATION VARIES WITH THE NATURE OF BUSINESS AND NO UNIFORM YARDSTICK COULD BE A DOPTED. 6.3.2. THE PROFIT MARGIN IN EACH TRADE IS DIFFERENT AND THERE CANNOT BE A UNIFORM PROFIT MARGIN FOR ALL THE BUSINESS. IN THIS CASE, IT IS FELT REASONABLE TO ESTIMATE THE G.P. @10% OF THE ALLEGED BOGUS PURCHASES. THE AO IS FURTHER DIRECTED TO REDUC E THE GP ALREADY DECLARED BY THE APPELLANT ON THESE PURCHASES. 7. THE LAST GROUND OF APPEAL IS THAT THE ABOVE GROUNDS OF APPEAL ARE WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO ONE ANOTHER AND THE APPELLANT CRAVES LEAVE TO ADD, ALTER, AMEND, DELETE OR MODIFY ANY OF THE ABOVE G ROUNDS OF APPEAL. 7.1. NO SUCH OPTION HAS BEEN EXERCISED BY THE APPELLANT DURING THE APPEAL PROCEEDINGS. THEREFORE, IT IS CLEAR THAT THIS GROUND OF APPEAL IS ACADEMIC IN NATURE AND NO DECISION IS REQUIRED IN RESPECT OF THIS GROUND OF APPEAL. FOR STATI STICAL PURPOSE, THIS SHOULD BE TAKEN TO BE DISMISSED GROUND OF APPEAL. ITA NO. 470/MUM/2017 & 471/MUM/2017 SMT. BHAVANA BHUPENDRA JOSHI & SHRI BHARAT KUMAR N JOSHI 7 11. I HAVE CONSIDERED THE CONTENTION OF LEARNED AR AND DR AND GONE THROUGH THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW AND FOUND FORM RECORD THAT FACTUM OF ASSESSEE HAVING TAKEN BILLS FROM BO GUS SUPPLIER, WHO DID NOT SUPPLIED ANY GOODS TO ASSESSEE HAD BEEN ESTABLISHED AS PER DETAILED INQUIRIES CONDUCTED BY AO . U NDER THESE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES AFTER CONSIDERING VARIOUS JUDICIAL PRONOUNCEMENTS TO THE FACTS OF INSTANT CASE, THE CIT(A) HAS UPHE LD THE ADDITION TO THE EXTENT OF 10% OF GP ON THE BOGUS PURCHASES IN PLACE OF 12.5% AS ESTIMATED BY THE AO. 12. NOTHING WAS PLACED BEFORE ME SO AS TO PERSUADE ME TO DEVIATE FROM THE FINDINGS OF CIT(A) FOR ESTIMATING PROFIT AT 10% IN PLACE OF PROFIT OF 12. 5% AS SHOWN BY THE AO. ACCORDINGLY, I DO NOT FIND ANY REASON TO INTERFERE IN THE ORDER OF CIT(A). 13. IN THE RESULT, APPEAL OF ASSESSEE IS DISMISSED. ITA NO.471/MUM/2017 14. IN THIS CASE ALSO REOPENING WAS MADE ON THE BASIS OF INFORMATION FROM SALES TAX DE PARTMENT AND DGIT (INVESTIGATION), MUMBAI. AS PER THE REASONS RECORDED FOR REOPENING, I UPHELD THE REOPENING OF ASSESSMENT. SO FAR AS MERIT OF THE ADDITION IS CONCERNED, AO HAS ESTIMATED 12.5% PROFIT WHEREAS CIT(A) HAS REDUCED IT TO THE EXTENT OF 10% AFTE R APPLYING VARIOUS JUDICIAL PRONOUNCEMENTS. IN VIEW OF THE REASONS DISCUSSED HEREINABOVE , IN CASE OF ITA NO.470/MUM/2017, I DO NOT FIND ANY INFIRMITY IN THE ORDER OF CIT(A) FOR UPHOLDING ADDITION TO THE EXTENT OF 10% OF THE PROFIT. ITA NO. 470/MUM/2017 & 471/MUM/2017 SMT. BHAVANA BHUPENDRA JOSHI & SHRI BHARAT KUMAR N JOSHI 8 15. IN THE RESULT, BO TH THE APPEALS ARE DISMISSED. O RDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON THIS 26 / 12 /2017 S D/ - ( R.C.SHARMA ) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER MUMBAI ; DATED 26 / 12 / 201 7 KARUNA SR. PS COPY OF THE ORDER FORWAR DED TO : BY ORDER, ( ASSTT. REGISTRAR) ITAT, MUMBAI 1. THE APPELLANT 2. THE RESPONDENT. 3. THE CIT(A), MUMBAI. 4. CIT 5. DR, ITAT, MUMBAI 6. GUARD FILE. //TRUE COPY//