ACIT 21 (1), MUMBAI V. ANAND PRABHAKAR KHANOLKAR, MUMBAI

ITA 5971/MUM/2018

• Counselvise Citation: [2020] 111 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 7437 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 2 month(s) 21 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 07-01-2020
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Assessment Year: 2009-2010
• Appeal Filed On: 17-10-2018
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: AKHATAR H ANSARI
• Assessee Lawyers: OJAS SHAH
• Keywords: Bogus purchase; Depreciation
• Section: 201

Judgement Text

T HE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL SMC BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI SHAMIM YAHYA ( A M) & SHRI PAWAN SINGH (JM) I.T.A. NO. 5971 /MUM/ 201 8 (ASSESSMENT YEAR 20 09 - 10 ) ACIT - 21(1) ROOM NO. 116 1 ST FLOOR PIRAMAL CHAMBERS PARE, MUMBAI - 400 012. V S . SHRI ANAND P RABHAKAR KHANOLKAR 202, URVASHI BUILDING OFF SAYANI ROAD PRABHADEVI, MUMBAI - 25. PAN : AHKPK7309M ( APPELLANT ) ( RESPONDENT ) ASSESSEE BY SHRI OJAS SHAH DEPARTMENT BY SHRI AKHATAR H. ANSARI DATE OF HEARING 26 . 11 . 201 9 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT 0 7 . 0 1 . 20 20 O R D E R PER SHAMIM YAHYA (AM) : - THIS IS AN APPEAL BY THE REVENUE WHEREIN THE REVENUE IS AGGRIEVED THAT LEARNED CIT(A) HAS DELETED THE ADDITION OF RS. 90,000/ - BEING DISALLOWANCE ON ACCOUNT OF BOGUS PURCHASES VIDE ORDER DATED 30.7.2018 P ERTAINING TO A.Y. 2009 - 10. 2. IN THIS CASE THE ASSESSMENT WAS REOPENED UPON INFORMATION FROM SALES TAX DEPARTMENT THAT ASSESSEE HAS MADE PURCHASES FROM BOGUS DEALERS. THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN THIS CASE HAS MADE 100% ADDITION ON ACCOUNT OF BOGUS PURCHASES AMOUNTING TO RS. 90,000/ - . 3. UPON ASSESSEES APPEAL LEARNED CIT(A) HAS NOTED THAT THE SAID PURCHASE WAS PURCHASE OF MACHINERY AND NO DEPRECIATION ON IT WAS EVEN CLAIMED. HENCE, SHE DELETED THE ADDITION. 4. AGAINST THE ABOVE ORDER THE REVENUE IS IN APPE AL BEFORE THE ITAT. WE HAVE HEARD BOTH THE COUNSEL AND PERUSED THE RECORDS. WE FIND THAT WHEN THE SHRI ANAND PRABHAKAR KHANOLKAR 2 PURCHASE HAS BEEN DEBITED TO PLANT AND MACHINERY AND NO DEPRECIATION IS CLAIMED, LEARNED CIT(A) IS CORRECT IN DELETING THE ADDITION. HENCE, WE UPHOLD THE SAM E. 5. IN THE RESULT, THIS APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE STANDS DISMISSED. ORDER HAS BE EN PRONOUNCED IN THE COURT ON 7 . 1 . 20 20 . SD/ - SD/ - ( PAWAN SINGH ) (SH A MIM YAHYA ) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER MUMBAI ; DATED : 7 / 1 / 20 20 COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. THE APPELLANT 2. THE RESPONDENT 3. THE CIT(A) 4. CIT 5. DR, ITAT, MUMBAI 6. GUARD FILE. BY ORDER, //TRUE COPY// ( ASSISTANT REGISTRAR ) P S ITAT, MUMBAI