ITO 28(1)(1), MUMBAI Vs SHRI AHMED MOHMED VASTA, MUMBAI

Last updated: 30 October 2020

Court :
ITAT Mumbai

Brief :
This is an appeal by the Revenue wherein the Revenue is aggrieved that the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-26, Mumbai (‘ld.CIT(A) for short) dated 29.03.2019 has reduced the addition for bogus purchase of Rs.4,24,081/- done by the Assessing Officer @ 100% by sustaining only 12.5%.

Citation :
ITA No. 3558/Mum/2019

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “SMC” BENCH, MUMBAI

BEFORE SHRI SHAMIM YAHYA, AM AND SHRI RAM LAL NEGI, JM

ITA No. 3558/Mum/2019
(Assessment Year: 2010-11)

Income tax Officer-28(1)(1) Room No. 329, 3rd Floor, 6th Tower, Vashi Railway Station Complex, Vasi, Navi Mumbai-400 703 PAN/GIR No. AAAPV 4065 E
(Appellant)

Vs.

Shri Ahmed Mohmed Vasta C-101, Millennium Park, Sector-25, Nerul,Navi Mumbai-400 706
(Respondent)

Appellant by : Shri Jeetendra Kumar
Respondent by : None
Date of Hearing : 20.10.2020
Date of Pronouncement : 22.10.2020

O R D E R

Per Shamim Yahya, A. M.:

This is an appeal by the Revenue wherein the Revenue is aggrieved that the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-26, Mumbai (‘ld.CIT(A) for short) dated 29.03.2019 has reduced the addition for bogus purchase of Rs.4,24,081/- done by the Assessing Officer @ 100% by sustaining only 12.5%.

2. The assessee in this case is engaged into the business as M/s. Accurate Electric works and is engaged in business of government and municipal contractors for flood gate suppliers and services under disaster management system.

3. The assessment was reopened upon information from sales tax department that the assessee has made Rs.4,24,081/- purchases from bogus dealers. The A.O. made 100% addition of the bogus purchase.

4. Upon the assessee’s appeal, the ld. CIT(A) has noted that the sales has not been doubted. Accordingly, placing reliance upon the several case laws and upon the facts of the case, he sustained 12.5% disallowance out of the bogus purchases.

5. Against above order, the Revenue is in appeal before the ITAT.

6. None appeared for and on behalf of the assessee despite notice sent. Hence, we proceeded to adjudicate the issue by hearing the ld. Departmental Representative and perusing the records.

To know more in details find the attachment file