INCOME TAX OFFICER-32 (3) (4), MUMBAI V. SHRINIVAS B MARATHE, MUMBAI

MA 165/MUM/2022

• Counselvise Citation: [2022] 104 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 3228 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 month(s) 23 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Miscellaneous Application
• Pronouncement Date: 11-08-2022
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Next Hearing Date: 11-08-2022
• Assessment Year: 2010-2011
• Appeal Filed On: 19-06-2022
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “SMC” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI AMIT SHUKLA, JM M. A. No. 165/Mum/2022 Arising out of ITA No. 5820/Mum/2019 (Assessment Year: 2010-11) ITO – 32(1)(1), R. No. 703, Kautilya Bhavan, BKC, Mumbai बनाम/ Vs. Shrinivas B. Marathe, 703/704, Rajmadhur CHSL, Devidas Lane, Borivali (W), Mumbai- 400 103 स्थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./PAN No. AAQPK8939G (अपीलाथी/Appellant) : (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) अपीलाथीकीओरसे/ Appellant by : Shri Manoj Sinha, Ld. DR प्रत्यथीकीओरसे/Respondent by : None सुनवाईकीतारीख/ Date of Hearing : 12.08.2022 घोषणाकीतारीख / Date of Pronouncement : 12.08.2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amit Shukla, Judicial Member: By way of aforesaid Misc. Application (MA) filed by the revenue, it has been pointed out that there is a typographical 2 M.A. No. 165/Mum/2022 Shrinivas B. Marathe mistake in the concluding paragraph of Tribunal order wherein instead of estimated margin of 12%, it has been written as 8%. 2. Ld. DR pointed out that AO has made disallowance of 37% of total bogus purchases of Rs. 20,80,000/- which works out at Rs. 7,69,600/-. In the first appeal, Ld. CIT(A) restricted the disallowance of 12% of the alleged non-genuine purchases. The revenue preferred the appeal before this Tribunal and Tribunal has upheld the order of Ld. CIT(A) after observing as under:- 4. I have considered rival submissions and perused materials on record. Undisputedly, though, the assessee has raised doubt regarding the source of purchases; however, he has accepted that goods representing such purchases might have been purchased from the grey market. For this reason alone, the assessing officer, instead of disallowing the entire purchases, has restricted the disallowance to the profit element by estimating it at 37%. Whereas, learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has reduced it to 12%. Thus, the dispute is confined only to the percentage of disallowance to be made. After considering the overall facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the view that the decision of learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) to restrict the disallowance to the applicable VAT rate and estimated profit margin of 8% is fair and reasonable; 3 M.A. No. 165/Mum/2022 Shrinivas B. Marathe hence, does not call for any interference. Accordingly grounds are dismissed. 3. Therefore, Ld. DR submitted that instead of 8%, it should be taken as 12%. 4. On perusal of the order of Tribunal and of Ld. CIT(A), the contention of Ld. DR is correct that Ld. CIT(A) has confirmed the GP percentage @ 12% of the alleged bogus purchases, however in the last paragraph of the Tribunal order, it has been erroneously mentioned as 8%. Thus the order of the Tribunal is rectified and 8% shall be read as 12%. 5. In the result, the Misc. Application filed by the revenue stands allowed. Orders pronounced in the open court on 12.08.2022. Sd/- (Amit Shukla) Judicial Member मुंबई Mumbai; ददनांक Dated : 12/08/2022 Sr.PS. Dhananjay 4 M.A. No. 165/Mum/2022 Shrinivas B. Marathe आदेशकीप्रतितितिअग्रेतिि/Copy of the Order forwarded to : 1. अपीलाथी/ The Appellant 2. प्रत्यथी/ The Respondent 3. आयकरआयुक्त(अपील) / The CIT(A) 4. आयकरआयुक्त/ CIT- concerned 5. दवभागीयप्रदतदनदध, आयकरअपीलीयअदधकरण, मुंबई/ DR, ITAT, Mumbai 6. गार्डफाईल / Guard File आदेशानुसार/ BY ORDER, .उि/सहायकिंजीकार (Dy./Asstt.Registrar) आयकरअिीिीयअतिकरण, मुंबई/ ITAT, Mumbai