Income-tax Officer, Ward-3(3), Thane v. Sachin Ramesh Behare
[Citation -2019-LL-0916-17]
| Citation | 2019-LL-0916-17 |
|---|---|
| Appellant Name | Income-tax Officer, Ward-3(3), Thane |
| Respondent Name | Sachin Ramesh Behare |
| Court | ITAT-Mumbai |
| Relevant Act | Income-tax |
| Date of Order | 16/09/2019 |
| Assessment Year | 2011-12 |
| Judgment | View Judgment |
| Keyword Tags | quantum assessment • physical delivery • gross profit rate • actual purchase • sales turnover • hawala parties • grey market • bogus purchase • disallowance of purchases • restriction of disallowance • genuineness of purchase • documentary evidence • reopening of assessment • banking channel |
| Bot Summary: | Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) was justified in restricting the disallowance to 28.21 of the bogus purchases despite the fact that even during appellate/proceedings the assessee failed to substantiate the genuineness of the purchases with supporting documentary evidences of order of CIT(A). 3.Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) was justified in restricting the disallowance to 28.21 of the bogus purchases despite the fact that even during the appellate proceedings the assessee failed to substantiate the physical delivery of the goods with supporting documentary evidences of order of CIT(A). Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) was justified in restricting the disallowance to 28.21 of the bogus purchases despite the fact that even during the appellate proceedings the assessee failed to reconcile the quantitywise details of purchases from the hawala parties visa-a-visa sales thereof of order of CIT(A. We have heard and considered the arguments advanced by both the sides. 2.1 Facts on record would reveal that the assessee being resident individual stated to be engaged in the business of interior decoration was assessed u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 on 11/03/2016 wherein the assessee was saddled with additions of Rs.9.77 Lacs on account of alleged bogus purchases. 2.2 Although the assessee defended the purchases, the assessee could not produce any of the suppliers to confirm the transactions. The sales turnover reflected by the assessee has not been disturbed / disputed by Ld. AO. However, at the same time, the assessee miserably failed to produce any of the supplier. The additions which could be sustained, was to account for profit element embedded in these purchase transactions to factorize for profit earned by assessee against possible purchase of material in the grey market and undue benefit of VAT against such bogus purchases, which Ld. first appellate authority has rightly done. |