##PAGE1##

आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण (cid:13)य(cid:14)य पीठ मुंबई म(cid:21)(cid:22)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL

“D” BENCH, MUMBAI

BEFORE SHRI AMIT SHUKLA, JM

&

SHRI ARUN KHODPIA, AM

I.T.A. No. 5301/Mum/2025

(Assessment Year: 2012–13)

Income Tax Officer R Mehta & Co

Room No. 405, 4^th Floor, Piramal 536, Panchratna, Mama Parmanand

Chambers, Lower Parel, Mumbai, Vs. Marg, Opera House,

Mumbai-400012 Mumbai- 400004,

PAN: AAAFR1056P

Revenue-(cid:1)(cid:2)(cid:3)(cid:4)(cid:5)(cid:6)(cid:7) / Appellant Assessee- (cid:8)(cid:9)(cid:10)(cid:6)(cid:7) / Respondent

:

Assessee by : Shri. Rajeev Khandelwal

Revenue by : Shri Annavaran Kosuri, Sr. AR

Date of Hearing 23.12.2025

:

Date of Pronouncement : 30.12.2025

O R D E R

Per Arun Khodpia, AM:

The captioned appeal is filed by the revenue, directed against the order of

Commissioner of income tax appeals (for short “ld. CIT(A)”), NFAC, New

Delhi dated 18.06.2025, for the assessment year (AY) 2012 – 13, which in turn

arises from the assessment order dated 18.12.2019 passed by Income Tax

Officer, W-19(3)(1), Mumbai (for short “Ld. AO”)) under section 143(3) r.w.s.

147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for Short “The Act”).

ITA No. 5301/Mum/2025

R Mehta & Co

2. The grounds of appeal raised by the assessee in the present appeal reads

as under:

“1. Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A)

has erred in restricting the addition @3% as against 100% bogus purchases of

Rs.1,05,64,083/- made from M/s. Kangan, a paper entity/concerns, were involved

in providing bogus bills without any actual supply of materials to assessee firm

and has not appreciated the fact that AO has given detailed reasoning for

quantifying the additions.

2. Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A)

has not appreciated the fact action of the AO was based on information/report

received from the DGIT( Investigation Wing), Mumbai that Rajendra Jain Group

and Dharmichand Group, all are hawala truders who were indulged in the

practice of providing accommodation entries of issuing bogus Sales/Purchase

bill without supplying any goods and the assessee firm was found to be one of the

beneficiaries of such practices, who have obtained accommodation entries of Rs.

1,05,64,083/- from M/s. Kangan, a paper concerns without actual delivery or

supply of materials to suppress the true profit."

3. "Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A)

has restricted the addition @3% as against 100% addition of bogus purchases,

by ignoring the fact that, Mr. Dharmichand Group has admitted in his recorded

statement during the search operations Mis. Kangan Jewels, was only paper

concerns and controlled and managed by him & his syndicates and no action

sales purchases was executed through any of this concerns and the assessee firm

has availed accommodation entries from M/s. Kangan for bogus purchases of Rs

1,05,64,083/-"

5. “Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, Id. CIT(A)

has erred in restricting the disallowance to the extent upto 3%, without

appreciating the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of M/s. N. K.

Proteins Ltd. Va. Dy. CIT (2016) 292 CTR (Gul) 354, Dated. 16.01.2017,

wherein the Hon'ble Court has held that price a findings of act has been given

that entire purchases shown on the basis of fictitious invoices and debited in the

P & L account are established as bogus, then restricting the addition to a

curtained percentage goes against the principles of section 68 and 690 of the

Income Tax Act, 1961 ?"

6. “Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the order of

the Ld. CIT(A) perverse in not considering the order of Hon'ble Supreme Court

in the case of M/s. N. K. Proteins Ltd. Vs. Dy. CIT (2016) 292 CTR (Guj.) 354,

Dated. 16.01.2017, which is on the similar issue of bogus purchases, was already

the law of the land when the Ld. CIT(A) has pronounced it's order on

18.06.2025?"

7. "Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, Ld. CIT(A)