Tribunal Quashes Order, Reinstates Assessing Officer's Decision on 10% Addition for AY 2010-11 Alleged Bogus Purchases.

The Tribunal allowed the appeal, quashing the order invoking revisional jurisdiction under Section 263 for AY 2010-11. It reinstated the Assessing Officer's decision, which restricted the addition to 10% of the alleged bogus purchases. The Tribunal emphasized consistency with previous decisions, noting no substantial differences to justify a different outcome.

---

---

Issues:
Validity of order invoking revisional jurisdiction u/s 263 for AY 2010-11.

Analysis:
The appeal challenges the invocation of revisional jurisdiction u/s 263 for the assessment year 2010-11 by the Principal Commissioner of Income-Tax-29, Mumbai. The Authorized Representative for the Assessee argued that a similar jurisdictional decision was overturned by the Tribunal in a previous case. The Departmental Representative did not provide any distinguishing facts. The initial assessment subjected the assessee to reassessment proceedings resulting in an estimated addition of 12.5% due to alleged bogus purchases. The Principal Commissioner observed the lack of proper documentation and ordered a full disallowance based on the Supreme Court decision in N.K.Proteins Ltd. vs. DCIT. The order was deemed erroneous and prejudicial to revenue interests under Section 263(1), leading to a set-aside for readjudication.

The Tribunal referred to a previous case where revisional proceedings under Section 263 were quashed due to the Assessing Officer's proper inquiry into the genuineness of purchases and the absence of relevant Supreme Court decisions during the assessment period. The Tribunal noted that the addition based on bogus purchases is a factual issue, varying case by case. In the absence of incriminating evidence as in the N.K. Proteins case, the Tribunal upheld the Assessing Officer's decision to restrict the addition to 10% of the bogus purchases. The Tribunal found no distinguishing features in the present appeal and followed the previous decision to quash the order under Section 263 and restore the Assessing Officer's order.

In conclusion, the Tribunal allowed the appeal, emphasizing the consistency in approach with previous decisions and the absence of substantial differences to warrant a different outcome. The order invoking revisional jurisdiction under Section 263 was quashed, reinstating the Assessing Officer's decision.

Order pronounced on 18th March 2019.

---