Aforesaid appeal by revenue for Assessment year [AY in short] 2011-12 contest the order of Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-18, Mumbai [in short CIT(A) ] dated 26/08/2019 which has provided certain relief to the assessee on account of alleged bogus purchases.
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
“H” BENCH, MUMBAI
BEFORE HON’BLE SHRI MAHAVIR SINGH, VP AND
HON’BLE SHRI MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL, AM
(Hearing Through Video Conferencing Mode)
Assessment Year: 2011-12)
Aaykar Bhawan, M.K.Road
Mumbai – 400 020
PAN/GIR No. AAFCS-2340-R
M/s Shahastraa Exports P. Ltd.
6th Floor, Navkar Plaza
Bajaj Road, Vile Parle (W)
Mumbai – 400 056
Assessee by : Shri Dinesh Agarwal – Ld. AR
Revenue by : Shri Gurbinder Singh-Ld. DR
Date of Hearing : 21/04/2021
Date of Pronouncement : 03/05/2021
O R D E R
Manoj Kumar Aggarwal (Accountant Member)
1. Aforesaid appeal by revenue for Assessment year [AY in short] 2011-12 contest the order of Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-18, Mumbai [in short CIT(A) ] dated 26/08/2019 which has provided certain relief to the assessee on account of alleged bogus purchases.
2. We have carefully heard the rival submissions and perused relevant material on record. Our adjudication to the subject matter of appeal would be as given in succeeding paragraphs.
3.1 The material facts are that the assessee being resident corporate assessee stated to be engaged in trading of chemical was assessed for the year under consideration u/s 143(3) on 21/03/2014. During assessment proceedings, it transpired that the assessee purchased import license for Rs.2.66 Lacs from an entity namely M/s Magnum Enterprises. The supplier was listed as bogus supplier by Sales Tax Department, Mumbai. Therefore, the assessee was directed to substantiate these purchases.
3.2 The assessee filed purchase bill, bank statements evidencing payment through banking channels and documents proving utilization of import license. However, Ld. AO observed that no documents were filed in respect of M/s Magnum Enterprises and the onus to substantiate the purchases remained un-discharged by the assessee. Accordingly, the said amount was disallowed and added back to assessee’s income while framing the assessment.
To know more in details find the attachment file