IN INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL SMC BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI SAKTIJIT DEY, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA no.6087/Mum./2018 (Assessment Year 2010 11) Income Tax Officer . Appellant Ward 4(2)(4), Mumbai v/s Minerva Biogenix Pvt. Ltd. 34 B, Mangaldas Building no.1 . Respondent Mangaldas Road, Marine Lines Mumbai 400 002 PAN AAECM0249E Revenue by Shri Chaudhary Arun Kumar Singh Assessee by Shri Sashank Dundu Date of Hearing 03.09.2019 Date of Order 13.09.2019 ORDER Captioned appeal by Revenue is against order dated 27th August 2018, passed by learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) 9, Mumbai, pertaining to assessment year 2010 11. 2. grounds raised by Revenue are on common issue of partial relief granted by learned Commissioner (Appeals) in respect of addition made on account of non genuine purchases. 3. Brief facts are, assessee company is stated to be engaged in business of trading in pharmaceutical raw materials and chemicals. 2 Minerva Biogenix Pvt. Ltd. For assessment year under dispute, assessee filed its return of income on 15th October 2010, declaring total income of ` 18,58,775. assessment in case of assessee was originally completed under section 143(3) of Income-tax Act, 1961 (for short "the Act") vide order dated 26th March 2013, determining total income at ` 1,31,02,600. Subsequently, on basis of information received from Sales Tax Department that purchases worth ` 1,96,38,700, made from three parties viz. Raj Traders, Ajanta Enterprises and Trishna Impex, were non genuine, as concerned parties were providing accommodation entries without actual sale of goods, Assessing Officer re opened assessment s 147 of Act. During assessment proceedings, Assessing Officer found that purchases made from Raj Traders and Ajanta Enterprises were already considered for addition in original assessment completed under section 143(3) of Act. Therefore, he called upon assessee to prove purchases of ` 83,94,880, claimed to have been made from Trishna Impex, through supporting evidence. Further, to verify genuineness of such purchases, Assessing Officer issued notice under section 133(6) of Act which, as alleged by Assessing Officer, returned back un served. Thus, ultimately, Assessing Officer held that purchases made from Trishna Impex, is not genuine and proceeded estimated profit @ 12.5% of such purchases, which worked out to ` 10,49,360. aforesaid amount was added 3 Minerva Biogenix Pvt. Ltd. back to income of assessee. assessee challenged aforesaid addition before first appellate authority. 4. Learned Commissioner (Appeals) noticed that while deciding identical issue of addition made on account of non genuine purchases arising out of original assessment order passed under section 143(3) of Act, Tribunal had directed Assessing Officer to estimate profit @ 8%. Therefore, following said decision of Tribunal, he directed Assessing Officer to restrict addition to 8%. 5. I have considered rival submissions and perused material on record. I have also applied my mind to decisions relied upon by learned Departmental Representative. As could be seen from facts discussed by Assessing Officer, purchases made during year from three parties were found to be non genuine as per information received from Sales Tax Department. Further, it is seen that purchases from two parties were subject matter of addition in original assessment order passed for impugned assessment year. While considering assessee s appeal on issue arising out of original assessment order, learned Commissioner (Appeals) had restricted addition to 0.10%. Against said decision of learned Commissioner (Appeals), Revenue came in appeal before Tribunal. Tribunal while deciding Revenue s Appeal in ITA no.133/Mum./2016, dated 1st November 2017, enhanced addition 4 Minerva Biogenix Pvt. Ltd. to 8% of non genuine purchases. While deciding appeal arising out of re assessment proceedings, learned Commissioner (Appeals) has followed aforesaid decision of Tribunal and has restricted addition to 8% of non genuine purchases as against 12.5% made by Assessing Officer. aforesaid decision of learned Commissioner (Appeals) being in consonance with decision of Tribunal in assessee s own case and in respect of identical issue, I do not find any infirmity in decision of learned Commissioner (Appeals). Insofar as decision relied upon by learned Departmental Representative, on careful examination, I find that all these decisions are factually distinguishable, hence, not applicable to facts of present case. Accordingly, grounds raised are dismissed. 6. In result, Revenue s appeal is dismissed. Order pronounced in open Court on 13.09.2019 Sd/- SAKTIJIT DEY JUDICIAL MEMBER MUMBAI, DATED: 13.09.2019 5 Minerva Biogenix Pvt. Ltd. Copy of order forwarded to (1) Assessee (2) Revenue (3) CIT(A) (4) CIT, Mumbai City concerned (5) DR, ITAT, Mumbai (6) Guard file. True Copy By Order Pradeep J. Chowdhury Sr. Private Secretary Assistant Registrar ITAT, Mumbai Income-tax Officer, Ward4(2)(4), Mumbai v. Minerva Biogenix Pvt. Ltd