Prakash Mafatlal Doshi (HUF) v. Income-tax Officer, Ward- 3, Navsari
[Citation -2016-LL-1018-87]

Citation 2016-LL-1018-87
Appellant Name Prakash Mafatlal Doshi (HUF)
Respondent Name Income-tax Officer, Ward- 3, Navsari
Court ITAT-Ahmedabad
Relevant Act Income-tax
Date of Order 18/10/2016
Assessment Year 2009-10
Judgment View Judgment
Keyword Tags inflated purchase • total turnover • purchase price • net loss
Bot Summary: During the course of the scrutiny assessment proceedings, the A.O. noted that the assessee has shown net loss of Rs. 5,84,125/- on a total turnover of Rs. 1.35 crores. The A.O. was not satisfied with the loss qua the turnover. On verification of certain bills of MMTC Ltd., the A.O. formed an opinion that the assessee has inflated purchase price and has shown net loss. Counsel for the assessee vehemently submitted that all the purchases are duly supported by invoices, delivery challans and no defect has been pointed out by the A.O. except some general and vague observations. The A.O. has doubted the genuineness of the purchases made from a Government of India undertaking. Such suspicion of the A.O. is uncalled for. Further, no cross verification is done by the A.O. with MMTC Ltd., We do not find any merit in the impugned additions.


IN INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AHMEDABAD B BENCH (BEFORE SHRI N.K. BILLAIYA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER & SHRI S. S. GODARA, JUDICIAL MEMBER) ITA. No: 1717/AHD/2013 (Assessment Year: 2009-10) Prakash Mafatlal Doshi V/S Income Tax Officer, Ward- (HUF) Prop. of Sun Gold, 3, Navsari 303, Nirmal Chambers, Sattapir, Navsari (Appellant) (Respondent) PAN: AADHD 3347N Appellant by : Shri S. N. Divetia, AR Respondent by : Shri James Kurian, Sr. D.R. ORDER Date of hearing : 13 -10-2016 Date of Pronouncement : 18 -10-2016 PER N.K. BILLAIYA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER 1. With this appeal, assessee has challenged correctness of order of Ld. CIT(A), Valsad dated 31.03.2013 pertaining to A.Y. 2009-10. 2 ITA No 1717/Ahd/2013 . A.Y. 2009-10 2. sum and substance of grievance of assessee is that ld. CIT(A) erred in upholding addition @ 0.5% of total turnover made by A.O. 3. Briefly stated facts of case are that assessee runs proprietary concern in name and style of Sun Gold engaged in business of trading in gold. 4. During course of scrutiny assessment proceedings, A.O. noted that assessee has shown net loss of Rs. 5,84,125/- on total turnover of Rs. 1.35 crores. A.O. was not satisfied with loss qua turnover. On verification of certain bills of MMTC Ltd., A.O. formed opinion that assessee has inflated purchase price and has shown net loss. A.O. concluded by making addition @ 0.5% of total turnover at Rs. 67,657/-. 5. Assessee carried matter before ld. CIT(A) but without any success. 6. Before us, ld. counsel for assessee vehemently submitted that all purchases are duly supported by invoices, delivery challans and no defect has been pointed out by A.O. except some general and vague observations. It is say of ld. counsel that no verification has been done by A.O. to verify genuineness of bills from MMTC Ltd. ld. counsel concluded by stating that rejection of book results on frivolous grounds is unwarranted. Therefore, additions deserve to be deleted. 3 ITA No 1717/Ahd/2013 . A.Y. 2009-10 Per contra, ld. D.R. strongly supported orders of authorities below. 7. We have given thoughtful consideration to orders of authorities below. We find that A.O. has doubted invoice price of MMTC Ltd. We fail to understand what benefit Government of India undertaking would derive by issuing inflated invoices to assessee. A.O. has doubted genuineness of purchases made from Government of India undertaking. Such suspicion of A.O. is uncalled for. Further, no cross verification is done by A.O. with MMTC Ltd., We do not find any merit in impugned additions. We, accordingly, set aside findings of ld. CIT(A) and direct A.O. to delete addition of Rs. 67,657/-. 8. In result, appeal filed by Assessee is allowed. Order pronounced in Open Court on 18 - 10- 2016. Sd/- Sd/- (S. S. GODARA) (N. K. BILLAIYA) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Ahmedabad: True Copy Rajesh Copy of Order forwarded to:- 1. Appellant. 2. Respondent. 3. CIT (Appeals) 4. CIT concerned. 5. DR., ITAT, Ahmedabad. 6. Guard File. 4 ITA No 1717/Ahd/2013 . A.Y. 2009-10 By ORDER Deputy/Asstt.Registrar ITAT,Ahmedabad Prakash Mafatlal Doshi (HUF) v. Income-tax Officer, Ward- 3, Navsari
Report Error