Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Mumbai
Shri Pravin C. Bokadia, Mumbai vs Ito 19(2)(5), Mumbai on 24 February, 2020
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
MUMBAI BENCHES "C", MUMBAI
BEFORE SHRI PRAMOD KUMAR (VP) AND SHRI RAM LAL NEGI (JM)
SA No. 76/MUM/2020
Arising out of ITA No. 3552/MUM/2019)
Assessment Year: 2009-10
Pravin Champaklal Bokadia, The ITO - 19(2)(5),
77, Dr. Mahimutra Marg, Mumbai
3rd Kumbharwada,
Near C.P. Tank, Vs.
Mumbai - 400004
PAN : AAQPB4778E
(Appellant) (Respondent)
Assessee by : Shri Vimal Punmiya (AR)
Revenue by : Shri Ujjawal Kumar (DR)
Date of Hearing: 21/02/2020
Date of Pronouncement: 21/02/2020
आदे श / O R D E R
PER RAM LAL NEGI, JM
The applicant/assessee has filed the present application for grant of stay on recovery of demand, raised by the AO amounting to Rs. 1,13,01,590/- on the basis of impugned order passed by the Ld. CIT(A), pertaining to the assessment year 2009-10.
2. In this case, the AO passed assessment order u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 147 of the Income Tax Act. (for short 'the Act') determining the total income of the assessee at Rs. 22,66,620/- against the returned income of Rs. 4,00,919/-, after making addition of suspicious purchases amounting to Rs. 18,65,705/-In the first appeal, the Ld. CIT (A) enhanced the addition from 12.5% of the total amount of suspicious purchases made by the AO to 100% and added an amount of Rs. 1,49,26,638/- to the income of the assessee.
2SA No 76/MUM/2020 Assessment Year: 2009-10
3. The Ld. counsel submitted before us that the Ld. CIT (A) has made the addition treating the sales/purchases as unexplained cash credit, just relying upon the information received from the Investigation Wing of Department. The Ld. counsel further submitted that the impugned order is not based on the evidence on record as the same has been passed without affording a reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee.
4. The Ld. counsel further pointed out that the income determined by the Ld. CIT (A) is unreasonably higher than the returned income, therefore, the assessee has strong case in its favour. The Ld. counsel accordingly submitted that since the assessee has a prima facie case in its favour, the demand may be stayed till the final disposal of the present case. The Ld. counsel further submitted that no prejudice will be cause to the department in case the demand is stayed till disposal of the appeal.
5. On the other hand, the Ld. Departmental Representative (DR) opposed the application of the appellant/assessee contending that the Ld. CIT (A) has enhanced the addition on account of bogus purchases on the basis of evidence on record. Therefore, there is no merit in the contention of the Ld. counsel that the assessee has a prima facie strong case in its favour and the balance of convenience is also in favour of the assessee.
6. We have heard the rival submissions of the parties and gone through the relevant material on record in the light of the contentions of the parties. As pointed out by the Ld. DR, the assessee during the year relevant to the assessment year under consideration obtained accommodation entries from three bogus parties to show purchases amounting to Rs. 1,49,25,638/-. Further, the assessee had only obtained bogus bills to inflate the purchases without taking any delivery of goods. In view of the modus operandi adopted by the assessee in connivance with bogus entities, we do not deem it a fit case for granting stay on recovery of outstanding demand. However, we are of the considered view that this appeal can be heard on priority basis. We accordingly 3 SA No 76/MUM/2020 Assessment Year: 2009-10 reject the application for granting stay on recovery of outstanding demand and fix the case for early hearing on 12.03.2020.
In the result, application for grant of stay of demand filed by the applicant/assessee is dismissed.
Order pronounced in the open court on 21st February, 2020 Sd/- Sd/-
(PRAMOD KUMAR) (RAM LAL NEGI)
VICE PRESIDENT JUDICIAL MEMBER
मुंबई Mumbai; दिन ुं क Dated 21/02/2020
Alindra, PS
आदे श प्रतितिति अग्रे तिि/Copy of the Order forwarded to :
1. अपीलार्थी / The Appellant
2. प्रत्यर्थी / The Respondent.
3. आयकर आयुक्त(अपील) / The CIT(A)-
4. आयकर आयुक्त / CIT
5. विभागीय प्रविविवि, आयकर अपीलीय अविकरण, मुुं बई / DR, ITAT, Mumbai
6. गार्ड फाईल / Guard file.
आदे शानु सार/ BY ORDER, सत्यावपि प्रवि //True Copy// उि/सहायक िं जीकार (Dy./Asstt. Registrar) आयकर अिीिीय अतिकरण, मुुं बई / ITAT, Mumbai