CICC AUTOMATION TECHNOLOGIES PVT LTD,MUMBAI V. ITO 12(1)(4), MUMBAI

ITA 6500/MUM/2024

AI Insights

CICC Automation Technologies Pvt. Ltd. appealed against the order of the CIT(A)/NFAC which confirmed the additions made by the Assessing Officer for the assessment year 2011-12. The additions included Rs. 6,19,756 for alleged bogus purchases and Rs. 21,74,030 as unexplained cash credits under section 68 of the Income Tax Act. The Tribunal noted the assessee's failure to provide any submissions or evidence to substantiate the genuineness of the purchases or the credits. The Tribunal also addressed the validity of the reopening of the assessment, finding that the mere information suggesting escapement of income was sufficient for reopening.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 712167 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 24-07-2025
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Assessment Year: 2011-2012
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: SURENDRA MOHAN
• Keywords: Corroborative evidences; Unexplained cash credit; Bogus purchase; Bogus
• Section: 148; 68

Judgement Text

"IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “SMC” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI PAWAN SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA No. 6500/MUM/2024 (AY: 2011-12) (Physical hearing) CICC Automation Technologies Pvt. Ltd. G-401, 4th Floor, Gokul Heaven, Thakur Complex, Kandivali East, Mumbai-400101. [PAN No. AACCC4389B] Vs ITO, Ward – 12(1)(4), Aayakar Bhavan, Maharshi Karve Road, Churchgate, Mumbai – 400021. Appellant / Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee by None Revenue by Sh. Surendra Mohan, Sr. DR Date of Institution 12.12.2024 Date of hearing 24.07.2025 Date of pronouncement 24.07.2025 Order under section 254(1) of Income Tax Act PER PAWAN SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER; 1. This appeal by assessee is directed against the order of Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC dated 17.10.2024 for assessment year (AY) 2011-12. The assessee has raised following grounds of appeal: “1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in the law, the I.d. First Appellate Authority (FAA), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC)- Delhi, erred in confirming the action of Ld. A. O. of issuing the impugned notice u/s 148 of Income Tax Act, 1961.\" 2. \"On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in the law, the Ld. First Appellate Authority (FAA) National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC)-Delhi, erred in confirming the action of Ld. A.O. of impugned addition of ₹6,19,756/- on account of alleged bogus purchases only on the basis of information received from Sales Tax Department without rejecting books of account.\" 3. \"On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in the law, the Ld. First Appellate Authority (FAA) National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC)-Delhi, and Ld. A.O. both erred in not restricting the addition to the extent of gross profit on alleged purchase of ₹6,19,756/- as upheld in various judicial precedents.\" Printed from counselvise.com ITA No. 6500/Mum/2024 CICC Automation Technology Pvt. Ltd. 2 4. \"On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in the law, the Ld. First Appellate Authority (FAA) National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC)-Delhi, erred in confirming the action of Ld. A.O. of impugned addition of ₹21,74,030/- as unexplained cash credit u/s 68 of The Income Tax Act. 1961\". 2. None appeared on behalf of the assessee despite the service of notice on more than three occasions. Perusal of record shows that ld. AR of the assessee appeared on 14.05.2025 and sought adjournment vide application dated 22.03.2025. Even prior to said dated the assessee obtained adjournment on 04.02.2025. Today, neither anybody appeared on behalf of the assessee nor file any application for adjournment. Thus, I left no option except to decide the appeal on the basis of material available on record and hearing the submissions of learned Senior departmental representative (ld. Sr. DR) of the revenue. The ld. Sr. DR for the revenue submits that assessee is habitual defaulter in not making timely submission, they have not filed submissions either before assessing officer or before ld CIT(A). The assessing officer completed the assessment under section 144. The assessing officer made addition on account of bogus purchases shown from fictitious entities which were providing bogus bills without actual delivery of goods. The assessing officer disallowed 100% of purchase expenses. The assessing officer also made addition under section 68 of Rs. 21,74,030/- by disallowing sundry creditors. The ld. CIT(A) upheld the action of assessing officer in a details order, despite the fact that no submission was made by assessee on various grounds of appeal. The ld. CIT(A) confirmed both the additions. Here again, no submissions or documents if filed by the assessee, despite the fact Printed from counselvise.com ITA No. 6500/Mum/2024 CICC Automation Technology Pvt. Ltd. 3 that this appeal is pending for more than one year. The appeal may be dismissed with cost. 3. I have considered the submissions of ld. Sr. DR for the revenue and have gone through the orders of lower authorities carefully. I find that the case of assessee was reopened on the basis of information from Sales Tax Department, Govt. of Maharashtra about the fictitious entities/dealers who were issuing bogus bills without actual delivery of goods. The name of certain bogus bill suppliers was forwarded to the DGIT Investigation, Mumbai. The assessee is one of the beneficiaries from Nisha Enterprise and Payal Enterprise, which were identified as bogus entry provider. The assessing officer recorded that despite giving various notices, the assessee failed to substantiate purchases from such parties and in absence of any evidence; he disallowed 100% purchases from both the parties. The assessing officer also noted that assessee has shown sundry creditors of Rs. 21,74,030/-. On show cause notice, the assessee failed to prove the claim of supporting evidence. Thus, the assessing officer added entire sundry creditors. Before ld. CIT(A), the assessee again failed to furnish any submission or evidence in support of their claim. The ld. CIT(A) decided the appeal on the basis of material available on record. 4. Before me, the assessee again failed to furnished any submission or supporting evidence either to substantiate genuineness of purchases or genuineness of sundry creditors, therefore, in absence of any evidence, I find no merit in the ground of appeal. Hence, the assessee failed to substantiate ground of appeal against the additions. So far as the validity of reopening is Printed from counselvise.com ITA No. 6500/Mum/2024 CICC Automation Technology Pvt. Ltd. 4 concerned, at the time of reopening mere information which may suggest the escapement of income is sufficient. Therefore, I find any merit in the grounds of appeal against the validity of reopening as well. In the result, grounds of appeal raised by assessee are dismissed. 5. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed. Order was pronounced in the open Court on 24/07/2025. Sd/- PAWAN SINGH JUDICIAL MEMBER MUMBAI, Dated 24/07/2025 Biswajit Copy of the order forwarded to: (1) The Assessee; (2) The Revenue; (3) The PCIT / CIT (Judicial); (4) The DR, ITAT, Mumbai; and (5) Guard file. By Order Assistant Registrar ITAT, Mumbai Printed from counselvise.com "