TMI Blog2022 (1) TMI 728X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... A) is correct in disallowing 12.5% of the balance amount. For this proposition, we drew support from Hon ble Bombay High Court decision in Nikunj Eximp Enterprises[ 2014 (7) TMI 559 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT] and Shapoorji Pallonji Co. Ltd[ 2020 (3) TMI 552 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT ] - Decided against revenue. - I.T.A. No. 19/Mum/2021 - - - Dated:- 18-11-2021 - Shri Shamim Yahya, Accountant Member For the Assessee : None For the Department : Ms. Smita Verma-DR ORDER PER SHRI SHAMIM YAHYA (AM) :- This appeal by the revenue is directed against the order of learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-25 dated 21.09.2020 and pertains to assessment year 2009-10. 2. Grounds of appeal read as under:- (i) Whether on t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t on 30.09.2009 declaring total income of ₹ 25,53,432/-. The appellant is proprietor of M/s,Chitsons engaged in the business of interior designing and manufacturer of wooden furniture. Subsequently, on the basis of information received from the Sales Tax Department, Mumbai as well as DGIT (Investigation), Mumbai, with regard to the bogus purchases made by the appellant, the case was re-opened by issuing notice u/s.148 on 13.03.2014. In response to the notice u/s.148 of the Act, the AR of the appellant stated that the return of income filed earlier on 30.09.2009 may be treated as the return filed in response to notice u/s.148 of the Act. An order u/s. 143(3) r.w.s. 147 of the Act was passed on 23.03.2015 determining total income of the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... plained expenditure u/s.69C and disallowed the same. 4. Upon assessee s appeal Ld.CIT(A) gave the following finding. I have very carefully considered the Appellant's grounds of appeal and statement of facts and the aforesaid order of the AO. It is observed from the assessment order that the AO has recorded the fact that appellant claimed that he is an interior designer who purchases goods from parties through representatives who offer their products to him which he purchases on credit. The AO has also discussed the modus operandi of the appellant's business in para 4.4 of his assessment order. Thus, it cannot be said that theappellant is not carrying out any genuine business, ft is also observed that during the course of ass ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ng reduction of ₹ 5,04,800/- written back with regard to M/s.Sumeet Sales on the grounds that it has already been taxed in A.Y. 2009-10. Since the appellant has offered that amount to tax in A.Y. 2012-13, there is no question of reducing the same from his returned income. However, the same amount cannot be taxed twice in the hands of the appellant. Therefore, the appellant should get relief of ₹ 5,04,800/- on this account. However, on the same page, the purchases; made of ₹ 4,00,000/- from M/s.Sumeet Sales remains unproven. 5. Thereafter, noting that sales are not doubted and placing reliance on record case laws, he concluded as under:- In view of the above discussed factual matrix and precedents, I am of the view ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 377; 5,04,800/- relating to M/s. Sumeet Sales has already been offered to tax in AY 2012-13 on account of creditors written off. Hence, Ld.CIT(A) has held that the same amount cannot be subject to tax twice. Hence, he has reduced this amount. I find that basis of this adjustment is cogent. Nothing contrary has been submitted by revenue. As regards, the rest of the disallowance, I note that AO has not doubted the sales. Hence, 100% disallowance is not sustainable on the fact and circumstances of the case. Ld.CIT(A) is correct in disallowing 12.5% of the balance amount. For this proposition, I drew support from Hon ble Bombay High Court decision in Nikunj Eximp Enterprises ( in Writ Petition No.2860, order dated 18.06.2014) and Shapoorji Pall ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
