Bombay High Court
Pr. Commissioner Of Income Tax -14 vs Devharsh Infotec Pvt. Ltd on 10 June, 2022
Author: N.R. Borkar
Bench: Nitin Jamdar, N.R. Borkar
skn 1 34-ITXA-383.2018.doc
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
INCOME TAX APPEAL NO. 383 OF 2018
Pr.Commissioner of Income Tax-14. ... Appellant.
V/s.
M/s.Devharsh Infotec Pvt. Ltd. ... Respondent.
Mr.Suresh Kumar with Ms.Swapna Gohhale and Ms.Krunali Satra
for the Appellant.
CORAM : NITIN JAMDAR AND
N.R. BORKAR, JJ.
Digitally signed by SANJAY SANJAY KASHINATH KASHINATH NANOSKAR NANOSKAR Date:
2022.06.18 14:59:55 +0530 DATE : 10 June 2022.
P.C. :
Heard the learned counsel for the Appellant- Revenue.
2. The Appellant- Revenue has challenged the order passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal dated 8 February 2017 in Income Tax Appeal No.2120/Mum/2015. The relevant assessment year is 2010-11.
3. The main ground sought to be urged by the learned counsel for the Appellant is regarding the Tribunal accepting the view taken by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) skn 2 34-ITXA-383.2018.doc disallowing only 12.5% of purchases which were considered as bogus purchases. The contention advanced is that having once found that the purchases were bogus, they should be disallowed in entirety.
4. The Division Bench of this Court in the case of the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax v. M/s.Mohommad Haji Adam & Co.1 has taken a view that if there are sales and that factum has been accepted by the Department then even if it is established that there were bogus purchases, it is not necessary that entire amount should be added to the income of the Assessee as there cannot be a sale without purchases. Therefore, the absolute proposition advanced by the learned counsel has been answered by the Division Bench in the case of Mohommad Haji Adam & Co. As far as reasonableness of the amount is concerned, the Tribunal has found that 12.5% arrived at by the Commissioner (Appeals) was reasonable in which we do not find any perversity.
5. Therefore, no question of law arises for consideration.
6. Appeal is dismissed.
(N.R. BORKAR, J.) (NITIN JAMDAR, J.) 1 ITXA No.1004/2016 and other disposed of by order dated 11 February 2019.