Case Law Details
ACIT Vs Rishab Steel House (ITAT Mumbai)
Since, Ld.CIT(A) followed the order of the Tribunal in assessee’s own case for the earlier as well as subsequent assessment years on identical issue and decided partly in favour of the assessee by directing the Assessing Officer to estimate the profit element in alleged non-genuine purchases at 5%, facts being similar, we do not find any infirmity in the order passed by the Ld.CIT(A) in restricting the addition to 5% of the value of purchases made. Grounds raised by the revenue are dismissed.
FULL TEXT OF THE ITAT JUDGEMENT
1. This appeal is filed by the revenue against the order of the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) – 3, Mumbai [hereinafter in short “Ld.CIT(A)”] dated 12.11.2018 for the A.Y. 2008-09 in restricting the addition to 5% of purchases as against the disallowance of 12.5% of purchases as non-genuine/bogus by the Assessing Officer.
2. Briefly stated the facts are that, assessee engaged in the business of Trading of steel, filed return of income on 27.09.2008 declaring income of ₹.25,70,213/- for the A.Y. 2008-09 and the return was processed u/s.143(1) of the Act. Subsequently, Assessing Officer received information from the DGIT (Inv.,), Mumbai about the accommodation entries provided by various dealers and assessee was also one of the beneficiary from those dealers. The assessment was reopened U/s. 147 of the Act based on the information received from DGIT(Inv.), Mumbai, that the assessee has availed accommodation entries from M/s. Navratan Impex who is said to be providing accommodation entries without there being transportation of any goods. In the reassessment proceedings, the assessee was required to prove the genuineness of the purchases made from M/s. Navratan Impex. Assessee furnished Profit and Loss Account and details of purchase parties and submitted that the purchases made are genuine. Assessee further submitted that the payments are made through account payee cheques as such contended that all the purchases are genuine. However, parties were not produced before the Assessing Officer and no explanation was offered.
Please become a Premium member. If you are already a Premium member, login here to access the full content.
