Read and express views
× 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.

01-03-2019, Nadeem Yusuf Sara, Tribunal Mumbai

  • amit
  • amit's Avatar Topic Author
  • Offline
  • Administrator
  • Administrator
2 months 2 weeks ago #8728 by amit
Section -
Order Date - 01-03-2019
Favouring - Assessee Partly allowed for statistical purposes
Court - Tribunal Mumbai
Appellant - Nadeem Yusuf Sara
Respondent - ITO
Citation - 219Taxpundit158
Appeal No. - I.T.A. No. 6937/Mum/2017
Asstt. Year - 2011-12


PER : Sandeep Gosain

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

Click to view and download Full Free Judgement of Nadeem Yusuf Sara vs. ITO

Unable to display Google Map.

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

Time to create page: 0.091 seconds

If You Appreciate What We Do Here On TaxPundit, You Should Consider:

We are thankful for your never ending support.

Latest Analysis - High Courts

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • 6
  • 7
  • 8
  • 9
  • 10
  • 11
  • 12
  • 13
  • 14
  • 15
  • 16
  • 17
  • 18
  • 19
  • 20
  • 21
  • 22
  • 23
  • 24
  • 25
  • 26
  • 27
  • 28
  • 29
  • 30
  • 31
  • 32
  • 33
  • 34
  • 35

Forum Features

Latest Case Laws
Latest Case Laws are instantly updated in the Forum into their respective section
Latest from CBDT
Latest Circulars, Notifications, Orders etc. from CBDT is updated in the Forum
Ask Experts
You can ask questions to the community
Support queries are either replied via mail or in the Forum so that others can be benefited
Press Releases
Latest Press Notes and Press Releases are updated in the Forum
Connect with Members
You can connect with our community members by replying to their queries

Recommended Articles



All content herein is the copyright of Taxpundit. No images, text, or any other content may be, reproduced or redistributed without the express written consent of Taxpundit.

All Rights Reserved. All Content Copyright.


Subscribe to our newsletter and stay updated on the latest developments and special offers!

Create your own website as per ICAI guidelines. Plan starts at Rs. 15000/- with Free Premium Membership. Read more
Toggle Bar