1
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, DELHI `SMC-2' BENCH,
NEW DELHI
BEFORE SHRI N.K. BILLAIYA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER
ITA No. 2859/DEL/2019
[Assessment Year: 2010-11]
Smt Meenu Jain Vs. The I.T.O
M/s Gautam International Ward - 2
85, Old Housing Board Colony Panipat
Panipat, Haryana
PAN: AFCPJ 3258 A
[Appellant] [Respondent]
Date of Hearing : 17.03.2020
Date of Pronouncement : 17.03.2020
Assessee by : Shri Puneet Rai, Adv
Revenue by : Shri Gaurav Dudeja, Sr. DR
ORDER
PER N.K. BILLAIYA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER:
This appeal by the assessee is preferred against the order of the
Commissioner of Income Tax [Appeals], Karnal dated 23.01.2019
pertaining to assessment year 2010-11.
2
2. The sum and substance of the grievance of the assessee
is that the ld. CIT(A) erred in upholding the addition of Rs.
11.10 crores on account of purchases made from M/s Ganpati
Enterprises. The assessee has also challenged the reopening
of the assessment.
3. At the very outset, the ld. counsel for the assessee
stated that he is not pressing the grounds challenging the
reopening of the assessment and hence the same is dismissed
as not pressed.
4. Facts on record show that on the basis of information received
from the office of the DDIT, INV, Panipat, the Assessing Officer came
to know that there are some bogus firms in Panipat who do not
purchase anything and who do not deposit any VAT. One of such firms
was M/s Ganpati Enterprises. The Assessing Officer found
that the assessee has made purchases from M/s Ganpati
Enterprises amounting to Rs. 11,10,818/-. The Assessing
Officer treated the same as bogus purchases and made the
addition.
3
5. The assessee carried the matter before the ld. CIT(A)
but without any success.
6. Before me, the ld. counsel for the assessee drew my
attention to the order of the first appellate authority for A.Y
2011-12 and pointed out that the very same first appellate
authority has made the addition by estimating the profit @
8% on bogus purchases. The ld. counsel for the assessee
further drew my attention to the order of the same first
appellate authority in the case of Sanjay Goyal wherein
purchases from the same party i.e. M/s Ganpati Enterprises,
were treated as bogus and addition has been estimated @
10%. It is the say of the ld. counsel for the assessee that on
identical facts, the same first appellate authority has taken
divergent views.
7. I have carefully perused the order of the authorities
below and the order of the first appellate authority referred
to hereinabove. I find force in the contention of the ld.
counsel for the assessee.
4
8. On identical set of facts and on identical purchases
which were treated as bogus, the first appellate authority
has estimated the addition @ 8% and 10% on bogus purchases
which means that the entire purchases have not been added
but only the profit margin has been added. In this view of
the matter, I deem it fit to estimate the profit @ 9% for the
year under consideration. I accordingly, direct the Assessing
Officer to add 9% of the bogus purchases as income of the
assessee.
9. In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA No.
2859/DEL/2019 is partly allowed.
The order is pronounced in the open court on 17.03.2020.
Sd/-/-
[N.K. BILLAIYA]
ACCOUNTANT MEMBER
Dated: 17th March, 2020.
VL/
5
Copy forwarded to:
1. Appellant
2. Respondent
3. CIT
4. CIT(A) Asst. Registrar,
5. DR ITAT, New Delhi
Date of dictation
Date on which the typed draft is placed before
the dictating Member
Date on which the typed draft is placed before
the Other Member
Date on which the approved draft comes to
the Sr.PS/PS
Date on which the fair order is placed before
the Dictating Member for pronouncement
Date on which the fair order comes back to
the Sr.PS/PS
Date on which the final order is uploaded on
the website of ITAT
Date on which the file goes to the Bench Clerk
Date on which the file goes to the Head Clerk
The date on which the file goes to the
Assistant Registrar for signature on the order
Date of dispatch of the Order
|
