×Latest Case Laws on Income Tax by various Income Tax Appellate Tribunals in India
These are the latest case laws decided by various Income Tax Appellate Tribunals (ITAT) of India on Income Tax which have been published recently. The case laws are open for discussion and we invite expert comments from our members on its applicability and effect on relevant issues.
The present Appeal filed by the assessee is against the order of Ld. CIT (Appeal) – 33, Mumbai dated 12.09.17 for AY 2011-12 on the grounds mentioned herein below:-
1. Ld. CIT Appeal erred in confirming the addition of Learned assessing officer wherein AO has erred in adding 12.5% of the total purchase value amounting of
Rs.21202455/- i.e Rs. 2650307/- ignoring the detailed evidences brought on record & further erred in levying interest thereon and ignoring the judicial precedents brought to his knowledge.
2. Ld. CIT Appeal erred in confirming the addition of Learned assessing officer wherein AO has erred in relying of judgment of Gujarat High Court, ignoring the latest judgment of Mumbai IT AT and our own jurisdictional court in the matter of Nikunj Exim Export.
3. Ld. CIT Appeal erred in confirming the addition of Learned assessing officer amounting to Rs. 2527679/-, though assessee has brought details of PAN and Confirmation parties during appeal proceedings
4. The assessee craves leave to amend, alter or modify of the above grounds of appeal.
The present appeal may be allowed and additions made by AO and confirmed by the Ld. CIT (A) may be treated as wrong, unjust & illegal and the order to that extent may be annulled or in alternate the matter may be remanded back to AO for fresh proceedings.
Ground No. 1 & 2
2. The above grounds raised by the assessee relates t challenging the order of Ld. CIT(A) in confirming the addition made by AO, wherein AO had erred in adding 12.5% of the total purchase value amounting of Rs.21202455/- i.e Rs. 2650307/-, therefore we thought it fit to dispose of the same by this common order.
3. Ld. AR appearing on behalf of the assessee submitted before us that his ground is covered by the order of Hon’ble ITAT in ITA No. 6935, 6936 & 6938/Mum/17 (for AY 2009-10, 2010-11 & 2012-13) in assessee’s own case, wherein the identical ground raised in the present appeal has already been decided on merits.
4. On the other hand, Ld. DR fairly agreed to the contention of Ld. AR that the issue is covered in favour of assessee.
5. We have heard both the parties and we have also perused the material placed on record as well as the orders passed by revenue authorities. We find that the identical ground has already been decided by the Coordinate Bench of Hon’ble ITAT in ITA No. 6935, 6936 & 6938/Mum/17 (for AY 2009-10, 2010- 11 & 2012-13) in assessee’s own case. The operative portion of the order of Hon’ble ITAT passed in ITA No. contained in para no. 5 to 8, which is reproduced below:-
5. The first issue relates to the addition made by the Assessing Officer on account of bogus purchases. I noticed that the assessee has placed reliance on the purchase invoices available with it and payments made to the parties. The assessee could not obtain the confirmation letters from those suppliers nor could it produce the suppliers before the Assessing Officer. The Assessing Officer has noticed that the Sales tax department has considered them to be hawala dealers, i.e., they did not supply any material on the strength of bills given by them. However, the assessee appears to have reconciled the purchases made from the above said suppliers with sales. Under these set of facts, the Assessing Officer has taken the view that the assessee might have purchased goods from some other sources and could have obtain bills from these parties. The AO