Mr. Banarsi Haridwar Sharma Vs Income Tax Officer, Ward - 20(1)(3), Mumbai

Parties Involved

Facts Summary

The assessee, Mr. Banarsi Haridwar Sharma, filed his return of income on 26/09/2011 declaring income of Rs.4,60,370/-. The return was processed under section 143(1) of the Act. The assessee is engaged in the business of trading in steel and scrap. Based on information from the Sales Tax Department, the Assessing Officer (AO) found that the assessee had obtained bogus hawala purchase bill entries amounting to Rs.2,16,72,481/-. The assessee explained that the materials were purchased from Shiv Industries from its business office, and therefore, delivery challans were not issued. In the absence of clinching evidence, the AO treated the entire purchases as bogus and made the addition of Rs.2,16,72,481/-. The assessee carried the matter before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) but without success.…

Legal Issues

• 1. Whether the entire addition of Rs.2,16,72,481/- made by the AO under section 69C of the Act as bogus purchases is correct.

Judgment Outcome

Decided in favour of Assessee.

Precedents Relied Upon

Similar Judgements

• Sh. Vinod Kumar, Proprietor of Vinod Enterprises Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-5, Karnal

  Delhi Bench benchAY 2012-13Partly Allowed

• Niraj Pravinchandra Doshi Vs ITO,Ward-19(2)(4), Mumbai

  SMC Bench, Mumbai benchAY 2009-10Partly Allowed

• ITA No.6546/M/2024, ITA No.6549/M/2024, ITA No.6779/M/2024

  Mumbai Bench benchAY 2009-10, 2010-11, 2011-12Partly Allowed

• Babulal Mishrimalji Mehta vs Income Tax Officer

  SMC Bench, Mumbai benchAY 2019-20Partly Allowed

• Nissim Traders Private Limited vs DCIT, Circle 2(3)(1), Mumbai

  SMC BENCH, MUMBAI benchAY 2018-19Dismissed

• Jugal Kishor Pradhan vs ITO

  Delhi Bench benchAY 2012-13Partly Allowed