ITO 21 (1)(2), MUMBAI V. BARMARE TIMBER TRADERS, MUMBAI

ITA 6916/MUM/2018

• Counselvise Citation: [2019] 112 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 0927 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 16 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 20-12-2019
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Assessment Year: 2010-2011
• Appeal Filed On: 04-12-2018
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: R BHOOPATHI
• Assessee Lawyers: NAMRATA PATEL
• Keywords: Bogus purchase
• Section: 201

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCHES SMC, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI VIKAS AWASTHY, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA NO. 6916/MUM/2018 ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2010-11 THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, -21(1)(2), MUMBAI VS. M/S.BARMARE TIMBER TRADERS, PLOT NO.18, RETI BUNDER, MAHIM (W), MUMBAI [PAN : AAAFB1768L] (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) REVENUE BY : SHRI R.BHOOPATHI, DR ASSESSEE BY : MISS NAMRATA PATEL, AR DATE OF HEARING : 1 7 - 12 - 201 9 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 20 - 12 - 201 9 O R D E R THIS APPEAL BY THE REVENUE IS DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORD ER OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(APPEALS)-48, MUMBA I, DATED 27-09-2018, FOR THE AY.2010-11. 2. THE BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE AS EMANATING FROM RECOR DS ARE: THE ASSESSEE IS A PARTNERSHIP FIRM, ENGAGED IN TRADING OF BAMBOOS, TIMBER, PLYWOOD ETC. IN SCRUTINY ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, THE ASSESSING OFFICER (AO) OBSERVED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS INDULGED IN OBTAINING BOGUS PURCHASE BI LLS OF RS.2,23,205/- FROM M/S.RONAK ENTERPRISES, A HAWALA DEALER. ACCORDINGLY, THE AO MADE AN ADDITION OF RS.2,23,205/- , TREATING THE PURCHASES MADE FROM HAWALA DEALER AS BOGU S. AGGRIEVED AGAINST THE ASSESSMENT ORDER DT.19-03-2011 PASSED U/S.143(3) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 (HEREIN AFTER ITA NO. 6916/MUM/2018 : 2 : REFERRED TO AS THE ACT), THE ASSESSEE FILED APPEAL BE FORE THE CIT(A). 3. THE CIT(A) VIDE IMPUGNED ORDER, PARTLY ALLOWED THE APPEAL OF ASSESSEE, RESTRICTED THE ADDITION TO RS.27,90 0/- I.E., 12.5% OF THE ALLEGED BOGUS PURCHASES. AGAINST THE ORDER OF FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY (FAA), THE REVENUE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL. 4. SHRI R.BHOOPATHI, REPRESENTING THE DEPARTMENT, VEHEMENTLY DEFENDED THE ASSESSMENT ORDER. THE LD.DR SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS FAILED TO SUBSTANTIATE GENUINENESS OF THE PURCHASES. THE ASSESSEE ALSO FAIL ED TO FURNISH COPIES OF TRANSPORT, OCTROI BILLS ETC., THUS, TH E ASSESSEE COULD NOT ESTABLISH TRIAL OF GOODS ORIGINATING FROM SUP PLIERS TO THE GODOWN OF THE ASSESSEE. THE LD.DR PRAYED FOR MODI FYING THE ORDER OF CIT(A) AND CONFIRMING THE ENTIRE BOGUS P URCHASES AS ADDITION. 5. PER CONTRA, MISS NAMRATA PATEL, APPEARING ON BEHAL F OF THE ASSESSEE, VEHEMENTLY DEFENDED THE IMPUGNED ORDER AND PRAYED FOR DISMISSING THE APPEAL OF REVENUE. 6. THE SUBMISSIONS MADE BY RIVAL SIDES HEARD AND THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW PERUSED. THE SALES MA DE BY THE ASSESSEE HAVE NOT BEEN DISPUTED BY THE REVENUE. THEREFORE, THE ENTIRE ALLEGED BOGUS PURCHASE CANNOT BE ADDED BACK. WITHOUT PURCHASES, THERE CANNOT BE SALES. IN THE GIVEN FACTS OF THE CASE, IT APPEARS THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS MADE ITA NO. 6916/MUM/2018 : 3 : PURCHASES FROM GREY MARKET AND THEREAFTER, OBTAINED BILLS FROM ALLEGED HAWALA OPERATORS. THE FAA HAS SUSTAINED ADDITION TO THE EXTENT OF RS.27,900/- I.E., 12.5% OF TH E ALLEGED BOGUS PURCHASES. TAKING INTO CONSIDERATION DOCUMENTS ON RECORD AND ENTIRETY OF FACTS, I FIND THAT THE ORDER OF CIT(A) FAIR AND JUSTIFIED. HENCE, NO INTERFERENCE IN THE IMPUGNED ORDER IS WARRANTED. THE IMPUGNED ORDER IS UPHELD AND THE APPEA L OF REVENUE IS DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON FRIDAY THE 20 TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2019 SD/- (VIKAS AWASTHY) / JUDICIAL MEMBER /MUMBAI; /DATED : 20-12-2019 TNMM / COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. ! / THE APPELLANT 2. ' ! / THE RESPONDENT 3. # $ ( ) / THE CIT(A), MUMBAI 4. # $ / CIT, MUMBAI 5. '()*+ , #-*+#. , / DR, ITAT, MUMBAI 6. )/01 / GUARD FILE ITA NO. 6916/MUM/2018 : 4 : # / BY ORDER, ' //TRUE COPY// /# (DY./ASST. REGISTRAR) #-*+#., / ITAT, MUMBAI