Appeal Details
Counselvise Citation
[2020] 111 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 4637 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
Assessee PAN
Bench
Appeal Number
Duration Of Justice
1 year(s) 2 month(s) 22 day(s)
Appellant
Respondent
Appeal Type
Income Tax Appeal
Pronouncement Date
14-02-2020
Appeal Filed By
Assessee
Order Result
Allowed
Bench Allotted
SMC
Assessment Year
2009-2010
Appeal Filed On
22-11-2018
Judgement Text
T HE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL SMC BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI SHAMIM YAHYA ( A M) I.T.A. NO. 6610 /MUM/ 201 8 (ASSESSMENT YEAR 20 09 - 10 ) JAYESH H. SHAH 309, PRATIK AVENUE NEHRU ROAD VILLE PARLE EAST MUMBAI - 400 057. PAN :AAFPS5426F V S . ACIT - 25(2)( 4) C - 10 PRATYAKSHKAR BHAVAN, BCK BANDRA EAST MUMBAI - 400051. ( APPELLANT ) ( RESPONDENT ) ASSESSEE BY SHRI DILIP RANE DEPARTMENT BY SHRI R. BHOOPATHI DATE OF HEARING 09.12.2019 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT 14 . 0 2 . 20 20 O R D E R THIS APP E AL BY THE ASSESSEE IS DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER OF LEARNED CIT(A) DATED 10.9.2018 PERTAINING TO A.Y. 2009 - 10. 2. THE I SSUE RAISED IS THAT LEARNED CIT(A) ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE ADDITION AT THE RATE OF 25% BEING RS. 62,400/ - OF THE PURCHASES OF RS. 2,49,600/ - ON THE BASIS OF INFORMATION RECEIVED FROM SALES TAX DEPARTMENT. 3. IN THIS CASE THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS MADE 25% DISALLOWANCE OUT OF ALLEGED HAWALA PURCHASES OF RS. 2,49,600/ - FROM M/S. DIPALI ENTERPRISES. WHILE MAKING ASSESSMENT THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS REFERRED TO INFORMATION FROM THE SALES TAX DEPARTMENT AND NON RESPONSE FROM THE PARTIES THE NOTICE U/S. 133(6). LEARNED CIT(A) HAD CONFIRMED THE AFORESAID ADDITION. 4. AGAINST THE ABOVE ORDER THE ASSESSEE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE THE ITAT. 5. I HAVE HEA RD BOTH THE COUNSEL AND PERUSED THE RECORD. I NOTE THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS NOTED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS ENGAGED INTO HAWALA PURCHASES FROM DIPALI ENTERPRISES FOR AN AMOUNT OF RS. 21,872/ - . THEREAFTER JAYESH H. SHAH 2 THE ASSESSING OFFICER MADE ADDITION ON THE BASIS O F NON - RESPONSE FROM THE PARTY ALLEGED TO HAVE SUPPL IED BOGUS BILLS WITHOUT DOUBTING SALES . THE ASSESSING OFFICER MADE DISALLOWANCE OF 25% OF HAWALA PURCHASES OF RS. 2,49,600/ - . THIS WAS ALSO CONFIRMED BY LEARNED CIT(A). 6. I FIND THAT IT IS BEYOND COMPRE HENSION AS TO HOW ON A BOGUS BILL OF RS. 21,872/ - DISALLOWANCE CAN BE TO THE TUNE OF 25% OF RS. 2,49,600/ - . IN MY CONSIDERED OPINION WITHOUT DOUBTING SALES SUCH AN ADDITION WITHOUT APPLICATION OF MINED WHATSOEVER IS NOT AT ALL SUSTAINABLE. ACCORDINGLY, I S ET ASIDE THE ORDERS OF AUTHORITIES BELOW AND DELETE THE ADDITION. 7. IN THE RESULT, APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED. ORDER HAS BE EN PRONOUNCED IN THE COURT ON 14 . 2 . 20 20 . SD/ - (SH A MIM YAHYA ) ACCOU NTANT MEMBER MUMBAI ; DATED : 14 / 0 2 / 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 ) PS ITAT, MUMBAI
Mehul