MIHIR OVERSEAS, MUMBAI V. ITO 24(1)(4), MUMBAI

ITA 6810/MUM/2016

• Counselvise Citation: [2018] 125 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 6005 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 7 month(s) 21 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 12-07-2018
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: K
• Assessment Year: 2009-2010
• Appeal Filed On: 21-11-2016
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: V JENARDHANAN
• Assessee Lawyers: HEMANT MANSUKHLAL BILAKHIA
• Keywords: Bogus purchase
• Section: 144

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL 'K' BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI R.C. SHARMA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI RAVISH SOOD, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA NO. 6810/MUM/2016 (ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2009-10) M/S. MIHIR OVERSEAS A502, GODS GRACE ADARSH DUGDHALALAY COLONY OFF. MARVE ROAD, MALAD (W) MUMBAI 400064 VS. INCOME TAX OFFICER - 30(1)(4) MUMBAI PAN AAJPB4335J APPELLANT RESPONDENT APPELLANT BY: SHRI HEMANT MANSUKHLAL BILAKHIA RESPONDENT BY: SHRI V. JENARDHANAN DATE OF HEARING: 28.06.2018 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT: 12.07.2018 O R D E R PER R.C. SHARMA, AM THIS APPEAL HAS BEEN FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A)-41, MUMBAI DATED 11.07.2016 FOR A.Y. 2009-10 IN THE MATTER OF ORDER PASSED UNDER SECTION 144 R.W.S 147 OF THE INC OME TAX ACT (HEREINAFTER THE ACT). 2. IN THIS APPEAL THE ASSESSEE IS AGGRIEVED FOR UPHOLD ING THE ADDITION OF 30% OF BOGUS PURCHASE BY THE CIT(A). 3. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS CAREFULLY AND G ONE THROUGH THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW AND FOUND THAT THE ASSESSEE IS CARRYING ON THE BUSINESS OF MANUFACTURER CUM TRADER OF PAPER ST ICKERS AND OTHER PACKING MATERIALS. THE AO WAS IN RECEIPT OF INFORMA TION FROM DGIT(INV.), MUMBAI THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD INDULGED IN BOGUS PURC HASES OF ` 1,35,98,732/- FROM VARIOUS PARTIES. THE SAID PARTIE S HAD INDULGED IN ISSUING ACCOMMODATION BILLS WITHOUT ACTUAL SALE AND DELIVERY OF GOODS. ITA NO. 6810/MUM/2016 M/S. MIHIR OVERSEAS 2 THEREFORE, THE CASE WAS RE-OPENED. IN RESPONSE TO T HE NOTICE ISSUED, THE ASSESSEE HAD SUBMITTED THE PARTY WISE PURCHASES ALO NG WITH ADDRESS AND TOTAL INVOICE AMOUNT OF EACH PARTIES. HOWEVER, THE ASSESSEE HAD NOT PROVIDED THE PAN AND VAT NUMBER, CONFIRMATION, COPY OF THE PURCHASE BILLS, TRANSPORTATION EVIDENCE AND STOCK REGISTER T O PROVE THE MOVEMENT OF GOODS. BEING NOT SATISFIED WITH THE EXPLANATION OF THE ASSESSEE THE AO ADDED 100% OF THE SAID PURCHASE IN ASSESSEES INCOM E. 4. BY THE IMPUGNED ORDER THE CIT(A) RESTRICTED THE AD DITION TO THE EXTENT OF 30% OF THE TOTAL PURCHASE. 5. FROM THE RECORD WE FIND THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS EXPLA INED CORRESPONDING SALES WITH RESPECT TO THE ENTIRE PURC HASES. THE SALES HAVE NOT BEEN DISREGARDED. BEFORE THE AO ASSESSEE HAS AL SO FILED PARTY-WISE PURCHASE ALONG WITH ADDRESS AND TOTAL INVOICED AMOU NT OF EACH PARTY. MERELY BECAUSE THE ASSESSEE HAD NOT PROVIDED THE VA T NUMBER OF THESE PARTIES THE AO HAS ADDED THE AMOUNT. SINCE THE CORR ESPONDING SALES HAVE BEEN ACCEPTED AND THE ASSESSEE HAD SHOWN REASONABLE GROSS PROFIT ON SALE, THEREFORE, CONFIRMING THE ADDITION TO THE EXTENT OF 30% IS NOT JUSTIFIED. KEEPING VIEW THE TOTALITY OF THE FACTS AND CIRCUMST ANCES WE DIRECT THE AO TO RESTRICT THE ADDITION TO THE EXTENT 12.5% OF SUC H BOGUS PURCHASES. WE DIRECT ACCORDINGLY. 6. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED IN PART. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 12 TH JULY, 2018. SD/ - SD/ - (RAVISH SOOD) (R.C. SHARMA) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER MUMBAI, DATED: 12 TH JULY, 2018 ITA NO. 6810/MUM/2016 M/S. MIHIR OVERSEAS 3 COPY TO: 1. THE APPELLANT 2. THE RESPONDENT 3. THE CIT(A) -41, MUMBAI 4. THE CIT - 24/30, MUMBAI 5. THE DR, K BENCH, ITAT, MUMBAI BY ORDER //TRUE COPY// ASSISTANT REGISTRAR ITAT, MUMBAI BENCHES, MUMBAI N.P.