MEDITRIN INSTRUMENTS, MUMBAI V. ITO 30(2)(3), MUMBAI

ITA 6944/MUM/2016

• Counselvise Citation: [2018] 125 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 5589 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 8 month(s) 2 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 31-07-2018
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: Not Allotted
• Assessment Year: 2009-2010
• Appeal Filed On: 28-11-2016
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: JAYANT KUMAR
• Assessee Lawyers: SAMIR SHAH PARTNER
• Keywords: Bogus purchase

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL K BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE S/ SHRI B.R.BASKARAN (AM) & AMARJIT SINGH (JM) I.T.A. NO. 6944/MUM/2016 (ASSESSMENT YEAR 2009 - 10) I.T.A. NO. 6946 /MUM /20 1 6 (ASSESSMENT YEAR 20 11 - 12 ) M/S. MEDITRIN INSTRUMENTS MADHUBAN, MALVA NI CHURCH NEAR AKASHVANI RADIO STATION, MALAD (WEST) MUMBAI - 400 095. PAN : AAAFM3484G VS. ITO 30(2)(3) PRATYAKSHA KAR BHAVAN BANDRA KURLA COMPLEX BANDRA EAST MUMBAI - 400 051. ( APPELLANT ) ( RESPONDENT ) ASSESSEE BY SHRI SAMIR SHAH , PARTNER DEPARTM ENT BY SHRI JAYANT KUMAR DATE OF HEARING 31 . 7 . 201 8 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT 31 . 7 . 201 8 O R D E R PER B ENCH : - BOTH THE APPEALS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE ARE DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER PASSED BY THE LEARNED CIT(A) 41, MUMBAI AND THEY RELATE TO A.YS . 2009 - 10& 2011 - 12. 2. THE ASSESSEE IS ENGAGED IN THE BUSINESS OF MANUFACTURE OF ELECTRO MEDICAL EQUIPMENTS. THE REVENUE RECEIVED INFORMATION FROM THE SALES TAX DEPARTMENT OF GOVERNMENT OF MAHARASHTRA THAT CERTAIN DEAL ERS ARE ENGAGED IN THE ACTIVITY OF PR OVIDING ONLY ACCOMMODATION BILLS WITHOUT ACTUALLY SUPPLYING THE MATERIALS. THE REVENUE ALSO COLLECTED DETAILS OF SUCH DEALERS AND DE TAI LS OF ACCOMMODATION BILLS PROVIDED BY THEM TO VARIOUS PARTIES. IT WAS NOTICED FROM THOSE DOCUMENTS THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS PURCHASED MATERIAL S FOR AN AMOUNT AGGREGATING TO ` 89.82 LAKHS AND ` 63.68 LAKHS RESPECTIVELY D URING THE YEARS RELEVANT TO ASSESSMENT YEARS 2011 - 12 AND 2009 - 10 FROM SUCH PERSONS MENTIONED IN THE LIST SUPPLIED BY THE SALES TAX DEPARTMENT. ACCORDINGLY, THE M/S. MEDITRIN INSTRUMENTS 2 ASSESSING OFFICER REOPENED THE ASSESSMENT OF TWO YEARS UNDER CONSIDERATION AND DISALLOWED ENTIRE AMOUNT OF PURCHASES MENTIONED ABOVE TREATING THEM AS BOGUS PURCHASES. THE LEARNED CIT(A), HOWEVER , RESTRICTED THE ADDITION TO 30% OF THE VALUE OF BOGUS PURCHAS ES. STILL AGGRIEVED, ASSESSEE HAS FILED THESE APPEALS BEFORE US. 3. AT THE TIME OF HEARING, SHRI SAM I R SHAH, PARTNER OF THE ASSESSEE FIRM APPEARED AND SUBMITTED THAT AN IDENTICAL ADDITION WAS MADE IN AY 2010 - 11 AND THE LEARNED CIT(A) HAD CONFIRMED TO THE EXTENT OF 30% OF VALUE OF PURCHASES. HE SUBMITTED THAT THE COORDINATE BENCH OF THE TRIBUNAL, VID E ITS ORDER DATED 15.9.2017 PASSED IN ITA NO. 6945/MUM/2016 , HAS RESTRICTED THE ADDITION TO 12.5% OF THE VALUE OF BOGUS PURCHASES. ACCORDINGLY, HE PRAYED THAT THE ADDITION MAY BE SUSTAINED TO THE EXTENT OF 12.5% OF THE VALUE OF BOGUS PURCHASES , AS DECIDED BY THE TRIBUNAL IN A.Y. 2010 - 11. 4. LEARNED DR DID NOT OBJECT TO THE PLEA PUT FORTH BY THE ASSESSEE. 5. HAVING REGARD TO THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS, WE ARE OF TH E VIEW THE DECISION RENDERED BY THE COORDINATE BENCH OF THE TRIBUNAL IN A.Y. 2010 - 11 IN THE ASSESSEES OWN CASE MAY BE FOLLOWED AS THE FACTS SURROUNDING THE ISSUE ARE IDENTICAL IN NATURE. ACCORDINGLY, WE SET ASIDE THE ORDER PASSED BY THE LEARNED CIT(A) AND DIRECT THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO SUSTAIN THE ADDITION TO THE EXTENT OF 12.5% OF THE VALUE OF BOGUS PURCHASES IN BOTH THE YEARS UNDER CONSIDERATION. 6. IN THE RESULT, BOTH THE APPEALS OF THE ASSESSEE ARE PARTLY ALLOWED. ORDER HAS BE E N PRONOUNCED IN THE COURT ON 31 . 7 .201 8 . SD/ - SD/ - (AMARJIT SINGH ) ( B.R. BASKARAN) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER MUMBAI ; DATED : 31 / 7 / 20 1 8 M/S. MEDITRIN INSTRUMENTS 3 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// ( SENIOR PRIVATE SECRETARY ) PS ITAT, MUMBAI