Allowing the appeal of the revenue the Court held that Tribunal erred by estimating only three per cent. of the alleged purchases as bogus to justify disallowance. By indulging in speculative reasoning that was never urged by the assessee, the Tribunal should not have estimated only three per cent. instead of confirming the disallowance of all the purchases. The non-co-operation of the assessee was only one of the grounds and not the sole ground. Practically every vital information was not produced by citing convenient inabilities. The documents and paperwork that would have invariably accompanied genuine transactions were missing or the assessee expressed inability to produce them. The orders passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) and the Tribunal were to be set aside and the addition made under section 69C in the assessment orders under section 143(3) read with section 147 by the Assessing Officer was restored.(AY. 2009 10, 2010-11)
PCIT v. Drisha Impex Pvt. Ltd.(2025) 479 ITR 315 (Bom)(HC) Editorial : Check SLP rejection ?
S. 69C : Unexplained expenditure-Accommodation entries-Grey market-Trading of electronic items-Information from sales tax department-Summons to parties returned unserved-Tribunal restricting the disallowance to three percent of purchases-Order of Assessing Officer disallowing the peak of purchases-CIT(A) and Tribunal estimated the percentage of alleged bogus purchases-On appeal by revenue-Court held that reassessment Notice valid-Failure to quote legal provision or quoting not to vitiate an action if power and authority were to be otherwise found in statute-Order under section 143(3), read with section 147 of the Act passed by the Assessing Officer was restored. [S. 37(1), 133(6),143(1)), 147, 148, 260A]
Leave a Reply