Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Mumbai
Gul Manoharlal Makhijani, Mumbai vs Ito, Ward - 2(1), Kalyan on 7 April, 2021
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL "G" BENCH, MUMBAI
BEFORE SHRI SHAMIM YAHYA, AM AND SHRI AMARJIT SINGH, JM
आयकर अपील सं / I.T.A. No. 3208/Mum/2019
(निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2009-10)
&
आयकर अपील सं / I.T.A. No. 3209/Mum/2019
(निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2010-11)
Gul Manoharlal Makhijani बिधम/ Commissioner of Income
6, Red Rose Society, Opp, Vs. Tax-3,
Chopra Court, Ulhasnagar, Room No.30, A- Wing, 6th
Maharashtra-421003. Floor, Ashar I. T. Park,
Wagle Indl, Estate, Thane-
400064.
स्थायी लेखा सं ./जीआइआर सं ./PAN/GIR No. : AAZPM5806H
(अपीलाथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यथी / Respondent)
Assessee by: None
Revenue by: Shri T. S. Khalsa (DR)
सुनवाई की तारीख / Date of Hearing: 18/02/2021
घोषणा की तारीख /Date of Pronouncement: 07/04/2021
आदे श / O R D E R
PER AMARJIT SINGH, JM:
The assessee has filed the above mentioned appeals against the order dated 22.02.2019 passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-3, Thane [hereinafter referred to as the "CIT(A)"] relevant to the A.Ys. 2009- 10 & 2010-11.
ITA. NO.3208/M/2019
2. The assessee has filed the present appeal against the order dated 22.02.2019 passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-3, ITA. Nos.3208 & 3209/M/2019 A.Y. 2009-10 & 2010-11 Mumbai [hereinafter referred to as the "CIT(A)"] relevant to the A.Y. 2009-10.
3. The assessee has raised the following grounds: -
"1. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Honorable Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) was not justified in holding that 12.5% of the alleged total suspicious purchases be disallowed. The learned AO had disallowed the total alleged suspicious purchases amounting to Rs.49,72,735/-.
The appellant craves leave to add and/or amend the grounds of appeal before or at the time of hearing."
4. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee filed its return of income on 23.09.2009 declaring total income to the tune of Rs.8,79,690/- for the A.Y.2009-10. The return was processed u/s 143(1) of the Act on 14.04.2010. The case of the assessee was reopened upon the information received from the Sales Tax Department in which it was conveyed that the assessee has taken the bogus purchase entry from the following nine parties read as under.:-
S. Name of the Entry Provider amount in the bills taken by the Amount of bill taken by the No. assessee assessee 1 Nageshwar Enterprises 35,119 2 Top Shop Trading Company Pvt. Ltd. 1,80,037 3 Om Corporation 11,21,169 4 Laxmi Trading Co. 3,28,296 2 ITA. Nos.3208 & 3209/M/2019 A.Y. 2009-10 & 2010-11 5 Nikhil Enterprise 2,75,580 6 G.M. International 2,24,192 7 Jigan Enterprises 8,69,564 8 Parshva & Co 17,49,485 9 Dhruv Sales Corporation 1,89,293 Total Rs.49,72,735 Thereafter, notice u/s 148 of the Act was issued and served upon the assessee. Notices u/s 143(2) & 142(1) were issued and served upon the assessee. After the reply of the assessee, the AO raised the addition to the extent of 49,72,735/- i.e. 100% of the bogus purchase and the total income of the assessee was assessed to the tune of Rs.58,85,440/-. Feeling aggrieved, the assessee filed an appeal before the CIT(A) who restricted the addition to the extent of 12.5% of the bogus purchase in sum of Rs.49,72,735/- works out to Rs.6,21,591/- but the assessee was not satisfied, therefore, the assessee has filed the present appeal.
5. We have heard the argument advanced by the Ld. Representative of the Department and has gone through the case carefully. The Ld. Representative of the revenue has argued that the revenue appeal for the same year i.e. 2009-10 has been dismissed by the Hon'ble ITAT by virtue of order dated 03.02.2021 in which the Hon'ble ITAT has confirmed addition of the bogus purchase @ 12.5% of the bogus purchase, therefore, the present appeal is liable to be dismissed. The copy of order dated 03.02.2021 is on the file in which the relevant finding is hereby reproduced as under.:-3
ITA. Nos.3208 & 3209/M/2019 A.Y. 2009-10 & 2010-11 "6. After due consideration of factual matrix as enumerated in the preceding paragraphs, it is quite evident that the assessee was engaged in the business of civil construction which would require consumption of material. The purchase transactions carried out by the assessee with suspicious suppliers were evidenced by copies of invoices and the payments were through banking channels. The confirmation of accounts as well as PAN of the suppliers was duly furnished. The sales turnover achieved by the assessee was not disputed by Ld. AO. At the same time, the assessee failed to produce any of the suppliers for confirmation of accounts and notices issued u/s 133(6) did not elicit satisfactory response. Therefore, it was a fit case for estimation of additions on these suspicious purchases. In our considered opinion, Ld. CIT(A) has clinched the issue in the correct perspective. The estimation of 12.5% was quiet fair and reasonable and the same do not require any interference on our part. Therefore, by confirming the stand of Ld. CIT(A), we dismiss the appeal.
7. Facts as well as issues are pari-materia the same in AY 2010-11 wherein the assessee was saddled with additions of Rs.96.98 Lacs on account of suspicious purchases. The Ld. CIT(A) restricted the same to 12.5% applying similar reasoning and logic. Aggrieved, the revenue is in further appeal before us with identical grounds. Since, the facts as well as issues are identical as in AY 2009-10, applying adjudication of that year, we dismiss this appeal also."
6. Since the matter of controversy has been adjudicated by Hon'ble ITAT in the appeal filed by the revenue bearing ITA. No.2762/Mum/2019 dated 03.02.2021, therefore, in the said circumstances, we dismiss the present appeal of the assessee.
ITA. NO.3209/M/2019
7. The assessee has filed the present appeal against the order dated 22.02.2019 passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-3, Mumbai [hereinafter referred to as the "CIT(A)"] relevant to the A.Y. 2010-11.
4ITA. Nos.3208 & 3209/M/2019 A.Y. 2009-10 & 2010-11
8. The assessee has raised the following grounds: -
" 1. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Honorable Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) was not justified in holding that 12.5% of the alleged total suspicious purchases be disallowed. The learned AO had disallowed the total alleged suspicious purchases amounting to Rs.96,98,939/-.
2. The appellant craves leave to add and/or amend the grounds of appeal before or at the time of hearing."
9. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee filed its return of income on 23.09.2010 declaring total income to the tune of Rs.13,51,970/- for the A.Y.2010-11. The return was processed u/s 143(1) of the Act. The case of the assessee was reopened upon the information received from the Sales Tax Department, in which it was conveyed that the assessee has taken the bogus purchase entry from the following nine parties read as under.:-
S. No. Name of the Entry Provider amount in the bills taken by the Amount of bill taken by the assessee assessee 1 Shubhlaxmi Sales Corp. Rs.11,78,050 2 Amar Enterprises Rs.15,50,411 3 Jigan Enterprises Rs.60,818 4 Mercury Enterprises Rs.16,12,352 5 Nikhil Enterprises Rs.35,336 6 Hitech Impex Rs.3,26,801 7 Om Corporation Rs.13,64,197 8 Daksha Enterprises Rs.18,28,985 5 ITA. Nos.3208 & 3209/M/2019 A.Y. 2009-10 & 2010-11 9 Parshva & Co. Rs.17,40,989 Total Rs.96,98,939 Thereafter, notice u/s 148 of the Act was issued and served upon the assessee. Notices u/s 143(2) & 142(1) were issued and served upon the assessee. After the reply of the assessee, the AO raised the addition to the extent of 96,98,939/- i.e. 100% of the bogus purchase and the total income of the assessee was assessed to the tune of Rs.1,10,93,890/-. Feeling aggrieved, the assessee filed an appeal before the CIT(A) who restricted the addition to the extent of 12.5% of the bogus purchase in sum of Rs.96,98,939/- works out to Rs.12,12,367/- but the assessee was not satisfied, therefore, the assessee has filed the present appeal before us.
10. We have heard the argument advanced by the Ld. Representative of the Department and has gone through the case carefully. The Ld. Representative of the revenue has argued that the revenue appeal for the same year i.e. 2010-11 has been dismissed by the Hon'ble ITAT by virtue of order dated 03.02.2021 in which the Hon'ble ITAT has confirmed the bogus purchase @ 12.5% of the bogus purchase, therefore, the present appeal is liable to be dismissed. The copy of order dated 03.02.2021 is on the file in which the relevant finding is hereby reproduced as under.:-
"6. After due consideration of factual matrix as enumerated in the preceding paragraphs, it is quite evident that the assessee was engaged in the business of civil construction which would require consumption of material. The purchase transactions carried out by the assessee with suspicious suppliers were evidenced by copies of invoices and the payments were through banking channels. The confirmation of accounts as well as PAN of the suppliers was duly furnished. The sales turnover achieved by the assessee was not disputed by Ld. AO. At the same time, the assessee failed to produce any of the suppliers for confirmation of accounts and notices issued u/s 133(6) did not elicit satisfactory 6 ITA. Nos.3208 & 3209/M/2019 A.Y. 2009-10 & 2010-11 response. Therefore, it was a fit case for estimation of additions on these suspicious purchases. In our considered opinion, Ld. CIT(A) has clinched the issue in the correct perspective. The estimation of 12.5% was quiet fair and reasonable and the same do not require any interference on our part. Therefore, by confirming the stand of Ld. CIT(A), we dismiss the appeal.
7. Facts as well as issues are pari-materia the same in AY 2010-11 wherein the assessee was saddled with additions of Rs.96.98 Lacs on account of suspicious purchases. The Ld. CIT(A) restricted the same to 12.5% applying similar reasoning and logic. Aggrieved, the revenue is in further appeal before us with identical grounds. Since, the facts as well as issues are identical as in AY 2009-10, applying adjudication of that year, we dismiss this appeal also."
11. Since the matter of controversy has been adjudicated by Hon'ble ITAT in the appeal filed by the revenue bearing ITA. No.2763/Mum/2019 dated 03.02.2021, therefore, in the said circumstances, we dismiss the present appeal of the assessee.
12. In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are hereby dismissed Order pronounced in the open court on 07/04/2021 Sd/- Sd/-
(SHAMIM YAHYA) (AMARJIT SINGH
ले खध सदस्य / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER न्यधनिक सदस्य/JUDICIAL MEMBER
मुंबई Mumbai; ददनां क Dated : 07/04/2021
Vijay Pal Singh/Sr. PS
7
ITA. Nos.3208 & 3209/M/2019
A.Y. 2009-10 & 2010-11
आदे श की प्रनिनलनि अग्रेनर्ि/Copy of the Order forwarded to :
1. अपीलाथी / The Appellant
2. प्रत्यथी / The Respondent.
3. आयकर आयु क्त(अपील) / The CIT(A)-
4. आयकर आयु क्त / CIT
5. दवभागीय प्रदतदनदध, आयकर अपीलीय अदधकरण, मुंबई / DR, ITAT, Mumbai
6. गार्ड फाईल / Guard file.
आदे शधिुसधर/ BY ORDER, सत्यादपत प्रदत //True Copy// उि/सहधिक िंजीकधर /(Dy./Asstt. Registrar) आिकर अिीलीि अनर्करण, मुंबई / ITAT, Mumbai 8