banner_ad

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
 

 

CCI Pro

Guest
Published in Income Tax
Views : 102
downloaded 139 times

Comments




CCI Pro
Meet our CAclubindia PRO Members

Follow us
add to google news


Company
22 May 2026
U.S. Financial Reporting & Consolidation Manager

Karia Overseas

Ahmedabad

CA

View Details
Company
29 May 2026
Finance Head

Bhawar Sales Corporation

Chennai

Graduate (Any)

View Details
Company
18 May 2026
MIS Executive

Primarc Pecan Retail Limited

Mumbai

B.Com

View Details
Company
10 June 2026
Senior Account Executive

JDS Advisory LLP

Ahmedabad

CA Inter

View Details
Company
19 May 2026
Article, CA & Paid Assistant Positions

Aggarwal Sarawagi and Co

New Delhi

CA

View Details
Company
ARTICLESHIP 04 June 2026
Article

Rakhecha & Co.

New Delhi

CA Inter

View Details
Company
01 June 2026
Audit, Taxation & Compliance Executive

R P S K & Associates

Nashik

CA Inter

View Details
Company
ARTICLESHIP 15 May 2026
Audit Assistant / Article Trainee / Intern

SSGS and Associates

Chennai

CA Inter

View Details