9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2021 (4) TMI 662 - AT - Income TaxEstimation of income - bogus purchases - CIT(A) has restricted the addition of disallowance of bogus purchases to the extent of 10% - HELD THAT - We find the facts and the issues in the present case are similar to the earlier years 2017 (2) TMI 1481 - ITAT MUMBAI and follow the judicial precedence and observe that the Ld.CIT(A) has granted the relief by restricting the addition to 10% of the bogus purchases relying on the assessee s own case for earlier years and passed a speaking order. Further the Ld.DR of the revenue could not controvert the findings of the CIT(A) with any new cogent evidence or information Accordingly we are not inclined to interfere with the order of the CIT(A) and uphold the same and dismiss the grounds of appeal of the revenue.
Issues:
1. Restriction of addition on profit from bogus purchases 2. Failure to appreciate admission of involvement in accommodation entries 3. Deletion of disallowance despite investigation findings 4. Appeal against CIT(A) order restricting addition Issue 1: Restriction of addition on profit from bogus purchases The case involved the revenue appealing against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) regarding the addition of profit from bogus purchases. The Assessing Officer (A.O) found that the assessee obtained bogus purchase bills from hawala operators, leading to income escapement assessment. The A.O added the amount of bogus purchases to the total income, resulting in an assessment of ?9,18,80,807. The CIT(A) restricted the addition based on the assessee's own case for the earlier assessment year, applying a profit rate of 10% on the purchases. The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A) order, noting the similarity of facts with previous years and the absence of new evidence from the revenue to challenge the CIT(A)'s findings. Issue 2: Failure to appreciate admission of involvement in accommodation entries The revenue contended that the CIT(A) erred in not appreciating the admission by the Managing Director regarding the involvement of the assessee in taking accommodation entries for bogus purchases. However, the Tribunal focused on the specific issue of restricting the addition on bogus purchases and did not delve into the admission aspect, as it was not directly relevant to the grounds of appeal raised by the revenue. Issue 3: Deletion of disallowance despite investigation findings The revenue argued that the CIT(A) overlooked the findings of the investigation wing of the sales tax department and granted relief to the assessee by restricting the disallowance. The Tribunal acknowledged the revenue's contention but emphasized that the CIT(A) had based the decision on the assessee's own case for earlier years and had issued a detailed order. As the revenue failed to provide new evidence to challenge the CIT(A)'s findings, the Tribunal upheld the CIT(A) order and dismissed the revenue's appeal. Issue 4: Appeal against CIT(A) order restricting addition The revenue's appeal against the CIT(A) order restricting the addition on bogus purchases was dismissed by the Tribunal. The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) had applied a consistent approach based on the assessee's previous case law and had issued a speaking order. Since the revenue could not present new evidence to counter the CIT(A)'s decision, the Tribunal upheld the CIT(A) order and rejected the revenue's grounds of appeal. In conclusion, the Tribunal upheld the CIT(A) order, which restricted the addition on profit from bogus purchases based on the assessee's own case for earlier years. The Tribunal found no grounds to interfere with the CIT(A)'s decision, as the revenue failed to provide new evidence to challenge the findings. The appeal filed by the revenue was dismissed, affirming the CIT(A) order.
|
