SHARAD CHIMANLAL SHAH, Mumbai V. INCOME TAX OFFICER 17 (3) (3), MUMBAI, Mumbai

ITA 5806/MUM/2019

• Counselvise Citation: [NaN] 107 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 2211 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 5 month(s) 23 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 02-03-2022
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Assessment Year: 2011-2012
• Appeal Filed On: 09-09-2019
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Section: 32; 147; 131; 68; 246; 69; 145; 27; 148; 54; 37; 6; 56; 263; 63; 132; 12; 28; 144; 10; 90; 154; 2; 11; 15; 271(1)(b); 139; 92

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “SMC” Bench, Mumbai Before Shri Shamim Yahya, Accountant Member I.T.A. Nos. 5806 & 5808/Mum/2019 (Assessment Years 2010-11 & 2011-12) Sharad Chimanlal Shah 77/79, Room No.207 2 nd Floor, Patel House Nagdevi Cross Lane Mumbai-400 003 PAN : AACPS1994H Vs. ITO-17(3)(3) Room No.127, 1 st Floor Kautilya Bhawan BKC, Bandra(E) Mumbai-400 051 (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by None Department by Shri T. Sankar, Sr.AR Date of Hearing 30.12.2021 Date of Pronouncement 02 .03.2022 O R D E R Per Shri Shamim Yahya (AM) :- These appeals by the assessee are directed against the order of learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) for the respective assessment years as above. The common issue raised is that ld.CIT(A) erred in confirming the addition of Rs. 2,91,742/- for AY 2011-12 and Rs. 6,15,610/- for AY 2010-11 both being @12.5% of alleged bogus purchases. 2. Since, the facts are common and connected. The facts and orders of the authorities below for AY 2010-11 are referred herein. 3. Brief facts of the case are that assessee is a reseller in industrial goods and items. The assessment was reopened upon information from sales tax authority regarding bogus purchases amounting to Rs. 49,24,880/- from ‘19’ parties. The assesse Sharad Chimanlal Shah 2 furnished copy of ledger account and copy of bills to the AO. It was submitted that assessee is not maintaining regular stock books and showed his inability to produce the parities. The AO estimated disallowances @12.5% of G.P. 4. Upon assessees appeal, ld.CIT(A) confirmed the addition. 5. Against the above order, assessee is in appeal before the ITAT. 6. I have heard the Ld. DR and perused the records. Despite notice, none appeared on behalf of the assessee. I note that facts of the case indicate that information from sales tax department was obtained that assessee was obtaining bogus purchase bills. Assessee did not produce delivery challans and stock records. Assessee has also showed its inability to produce the suppliers. These facts clearly indicate that assessee has made the purchases from grey areas. Making purchases from grey market enriches the assessee at the expenses of the ex-chequer. In these circumstances 12.5% disallowances of the bogus purchases, serves the interest of justice. Hence, I do not find any infirmity in the order of authorities below. 7. Since, facts are similar, the above order applies mutatis mutandis for AY 2011-12 also. 8. In the result, these appeals by the assessee stand dismissed. Pronounced in the open court on 02.03.2022 Sd/- (SHAMIM YAHYA) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Mumbai; Dated :02 /03/2022 Thirumalesh, Sr.PS Copy of the Order forwarded to : 1. The Appellant 2. The Respondent 3. The CIT(A) 4. CIT Sharad Chimanlal Shah 3 5. DR, ITAT, Mumbai 6. Guard File. BY ORDER, //True Copy// (Assistant Registrar) ITAT, Mumbai