ITO, WARD- 22(2)(1), MUMBAI vs KUMAR HASMUKH RUPARELIA, MUMBAI
Last updated: 28 November 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) [in short learned CIT(A)] has reduced the addition for bogus purchase of Rs. 5,70,985/- done @ 25% by Assessing Officer by sustaining only 12.5%.
Citation :
I.T.A. No. 2256/Mum/2019
THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
“SMC” Bench, Mumbai
Shri Shamim Yahya (AM)
I.T.A. No. 2256/Mum/2019 (Assessment Year 2010-11)
ITO-22(2)(1)
Mumbai
(Appellant)
Vs.
Shri Kumar Hasmukh
Ruparelia
13, Harivallabh CHS, J.K.
Mehta Road, Green Street
Santacruz West
Mumbai-400 054.
PAN : AACPR2188N
(Respondent)
Assessee by None
Department by Shri Kailash Gaikwad
Date of Hearing 13.10.2020
Date of Pronouncement 14.10.2020
O R D E R
This is an appeal by the revenue wherein the revenue is aggrieved that the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [in short learned CIT(A)] has reduced the addition for bogus purchase of Rs. 5,70,985/- done @ 25% by Assessing Officer by sustaining only 12.5%.
2. The assessee in this case is engaged into the business of building material supplier. The assessment was reopened upon information from sales tax department that assessee has made Rs. 22,83,941/- purchases from bogus dealers. The Assessing Officer made 25% addition of the bogus purchase for Rs. 5,70,985/-.
3. Upon assessee's appeal learned CIT-A has noted that the sales has not been doubted. Accordingly placing reliance upon several case laws and up on the facts of the case he sustained 12.5% disallowance out of the bogus purchases.
To know more in details find the attachment file
Guest
Published in Income Tax
Views : 236
downloaded 196 times
Comments
Trending Online Classes
-
DT & Audit (Exam Oriented Fastrack Batch) - For May 26 Exams and onwards Full English
CA Bhanwar Borana & CA Shubham Keswani
CAclubindia
