M/s. Rajendra Developers v. The Asst. Commissioner of Income-tax-21(1), Mumbai
[Citation -2016-LL-0922-51]

Citation 2016-LL-0922-51
Appellant Name M/s. Rajendra Developers
Respondent Name The Asst. Commissioner of Income-tax-21(1), Mumbai
Court ITAT-Mumbai
Relevant Act Income-tax
Date of Order 22/09/2016
Assessment Year 2010-11
Judgment View Judgment
Keyword Tags project completion method • business of real estate • real estate development • method of accounting • sales tax • hawala
Bot Summary: Briefly stated facts of the case are that the assessee is in the business of real estate development and following project completion method to offer its income in respect of projects undertaken by it. During the course of assessment proceedings the Assessing Officer issued notices u/s 133(6) of the Act to various parties to verify the purchases claimed by the assessee. Aggrieved, the assessee preferred appeal before the CIT who also confirmed the action of the Assessing Officer. Now, the assessee being aggrieved has come in second appeal before the Tribunal. We find from the case records and arguments of both the sides that in its statement of facts the assessee itself has requested to add a sum of Rs.1,56,413/- vide item No.13 which reads as under:- 13. During the course of hearing it was noticed that these are bogus purchases and the learned Counsel for the assessee admitted the fact. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed.


IN INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL D BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SRI MAHAVIR SINGH, JM AND SRI RAJESH KUMAR, AM ITA No.5198/Mum/201 (A.Y:2010-11) M/s. Rajendra Developers, 302, Galaxy Vs. Asst. Commissioner of Arcade, 10, M. G. Road, Vile Parle (E), Income Tax-21(1), Mumbai 400 057 Prat yakash Kar Bhawan, C -10 PAN: AAEFR 3686B Buuilding, 6 t h floor, Bandra Kurla Complex, Bandra (E), Mumbai 400 051 Appellant .. Respondent Appellant by .. Shri Vijay Mehta, AR Respondent by .. Shri B. S. Bist, Sr. DR Date of hearing .. 22-09-2016 Date of pronouncement .. 22 -09- 2016 ORDER PER MAHAVIR SINGH, JM: This appeal of assessee is arising out of order of CIT (Appeals)-21, Mumbai in appeal No.CIT (A)-21/ACIT-21(1)/IT-77/2013-14 dated 02-07-2014. Assessment was framed by ACIT, Central Circle-21(1), Mumbai for assessment year 2010-11 u/s 143(3) read with section 153A of Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter Act ) vide his order dated 26-03-2013. 2. only issue involved in this appeal of assessee against order of CIT (A) confirming addition made by AO by disallowing bogus purchases of Rs.5,16,880/-. 3. We have heard rival contentions and also gone through facts and circumstances of case. Briefly stated facts of case are that assessee is in business of real estate development and following project completion method to offer its income in respect of projects undertaken by it. During course of assessment proceedings Assessing Officer issued notices u/s 133(6) of Act to various parties to verify purchases claimed by assessee. In reply to notices, one of parties M/s. SAM Enterprises declined any supply of material to assessee and stated that he has given only bill and same was declared as hawala dealer by Sales Tax Department. Assessing Officer disallowed 2 ITA No.5198/Mum/2014 purchases made from M/s. SAM Enterprises as bogus purchases amounting to Rs.5,16,880/-. Aggrieved, assessee preferred appeal before CIT (A) who also confirmed action of Assessing Officer. Now, assessee being aggrieved has come in second appeal before Tribunal. 4. We find from case records and arguments of both sides that in its statement of facts assessee itself has requested to add sum of Rs.1,56,413/- vide item No.13 which reads as under:- 13. Appellant had requested to add sum of Rs.1,56,413/- based on method of accounting consistently followed & accepted by department in earlier year on account of such alleged bogus purchases. Appellant had also submitted revised working of income to be offered after considering alleged bogus purchases of Rs.5,16,880/-. During course of hearing it was noticed that these are bogus purchases and learned Counsel for assessee admitted fact. But, he requested for reasonable estimate of disallowance because assessee s sale is not rejected and hence, sale is accepted by revenue as it is. To this proposition, learned Sr. DR also agreed. We find that assessee itself has requested for addition of Rs.1,56,413/- and we accede to same. We direct Assessing Officer to restrict addition at Rs.1,56,413/- as against addition of bogus purchases made at Rs.5,16,880/-. We direct Assessing Officer accordingly. assessee s appeal thus stands partly allowed. 5. In result, appeal of assessee is partly allowed. Order pronounced in open court on 22-09-2016. Sd/- Sd/- (RAJESH KUMAR) (MAHAVIR SINGH) ACCONTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER Mumbai, Dated: 22-09-2016 Lakshmikanta Deka/Sr.PS 3 ITA No.5198/Mum/2014 Copy of Order forwarded to: 1. Appellant 2. Respondent. 3. CIT (A), Mumbai. 4. CIT 5. DR, ITAT, Mumbai 6. Guard file. BY ORDER, //True Copy// Assistant Registrar ITAT, MUMBAI Sr.No. Particulars Date Initials Member Concerned 1 Dictation given on 22/09/16 LK Deka JM 2 Draft placed before author 22/09/16 3 Draft proposed/placed before second Member 4 Draft discussed/approved by Second member 5 Approved Draft comes to Sr.PS 6 Kept for pronouncement on 7 File sent to Bench Clerk 8 Date on which file goes to Head Clerk 9 Date of dispatch of Order M/s. Rajendra Developers v. Asst. Commissioner of Income-tax-21(1), Mumbai
Report Error