Itxa/1447/2017 Of Pr.commissioner Of Income Tax-2, Thane v. Hasmukh Jagdish Visaria

JPP IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION INCOME TAX APPEAL NO. 1447 OF 2017 Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-2, Thane… Appellant V/s.Hasmukh Jagdish Visaria ... Respondent Mr. Sham Walve for the Appellant CORAM : M.S. SANKLECHA & NITIN JAMDAR, JJ. P.C.:- DATE : 19 NOVEMBER 2019. This Appeal under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act) challenges the order of the Income Tax AppellateTribunal (Tribunal) dated 4 January 2019, This Appeal relates toAssessment Year 2010-11. 2.consideration :- The Revenue has urged following questions of law for “(A) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances ofthe case and in law, the Tribunal was justified in notappreciating the fact that once the purchases have beenunverifiable / not genuine / bogus, the same should havebeen disallowed in entirety ?” 3.The impugned order of the Tribunal dismissed theRevenue’s appeal on the above issue by inter-alia holding that oncethe Assessing Officer has accepted the sale, then the purchases couldnot be rejected in its entirety. This as there had to be purchases tosupport the sale. Therefore, the addition could only be made of theprofit embedded by the purchases covered by the bogus bills. 4.In fact, this Court in Principal Commissioner of IncomeTax v/s. M/s. Paramshakti Distributors Pvt. Ltd. (ITXA No. 413 of2017) rendered on 15 July 2019 dismissed an identical issue raisedby the Revenue by inter-alia observing as under :- In fact, this Court in Principal Commissioner of Income “ Without elaboration, what the Tribunal by theimpugned Judgment held is that the Department hadnot rejected the instance of the purchases since the salesout of purchase of such raw material was accounted forand accepted. With above position, the Tribunalapplied the principle of taxing the profit embedded insuch purchases covered by the bogus bills, instead ofdisallowing the entire expenditure. We do not find anyerror in the view of the Tribunal. No question of lawarises.” 5.In the above view, the question proposed herein does notgive rise to any substantial question of law. Hence, not entertained. 6.Thus the Appeal is dismissed. NITIN JAMDAR, J. M.S. SANKLECHA, J.