GORDHANBHAI GOVINDBHAI KALATHIYA,THANE, MAHARASHTRA V. ITO- (2) (1), THANE, THANE, MAHARASHTRA

ITA 668/MUM/2024

AI Insights

Mr. Gordhanbhai G. Kalathiya appealed against the order of the National Faceless Appeal Center/Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), which had dismissed his appeal as time-barred and affirmed the disallowance of Rs.12,77,650/- added to his income as bogus purchases. The Assessee's case was reopened under section 147 of the Income Tax Act based on information from the Sales Tax Department regarding bogus purchase bills. The Assessing Officer issued notices to both the Assessee and the alleged hawala party, M/s. Shubham Enterprises, but received no response. Consequently, the disallowance was made under section 69C. The Commissioner dismissed the appeal due to a delay of 206 days and lack of supporting evidence, and also on merits after the Assessee failed to comply with e-notices for submissions.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 33858 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 30-01-2025
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Assessment Year: 2010-2011
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: SRINIVAS P.; LD.
• Keywords: Corroborative evidences; Bogus purchase; Bogus
• Section: 147; 144; 250; 133(6); 69C

Judgement Text

"IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, MUMBAI BENCH “SMC”, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI NARENDER KUMAR CHOUDHRY, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA No.668/M/2024 Assessment Year: 2010-11 Mr. Gordhanbhai G. Kalathiya, B 702, Rashmi Crystal, Sai Complex, Opp Shanti Nagar Vihar, Near Joggers Park, Mira Road East, Thane, Maharashtra – 401 107 PAN: AMAPK4630N Vs. Income Tax Officer- (2)(1), Qureshi Mansion, Gokhale Road, Thane Maharashtra – 400 602 (Appellant) (Respondent) Present for: Assessee by : None Revenue by : Shri Srinivas P., Ld. Sr. D.R. Date of Hearing : 28.11.2024 Date of Pronouncement : 30.01.2025 O R D E R Per : Narender Kumar Choudhry, Judicial Member: This appeal has been preferred by the Assessee against the order dated 23.03.2023, impugned herein, passed by the National Faceless Appeal Center (NFAC)/ Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) (in short Ld. Commissioner) under section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short ‘the Act’) for the A.Y. 2010-11. ITA No.668/M/2024 Mr. Gordhanbhai G. Kalathiya 2 2. Despite the fact that the Assessee on the previous date of hearing i.e. on 16.10.2024 has sought for an adjournment and therefore the case was adjourned to 28.11.2024 on which date the Assessee neither appeared nor filed any adjournment application. Hence, this Court is inclined to decide this case as ex-parte. 3. Coming to the merits of the case, the case of the Assessee was reopened u/s 147 of the Act on the information received from the Sales Tax Department to the effect that during the course of survey action and as per the admission of the beneficiaries, the Assessee had also obtained bogus purchase bills from M/s. Shubham Enterprises to the tune of Rs.12,77,650/-. In order to verify the genuineness of the purchases made, the Assessing Officer (in short ‘the AO’) had issued the show cause notice along with questionnaire to the Assessee as well as notices u/s 133(6) of the Act to the hawala party i.e. M/s. Shubham Enterprises. However, the AO has not received any reply from the Assessee and the hawala party and therefore in the constrained circumstances, the AO, by considering the affidavit of hawala party filed before the Sales Tax Department for not doing any business activities of sales and purchases and considering the conduct of the Assessee, made the disallowance of Rs.12,77,650/- and added the same to the total income of the Assessee u/s 69C of the Act, vide order dated 24.02.2015 u/s 144 r.w.s. 147 of the Act. 4. The Assessee, being aggrieved, challenged the said addition before the Ld. Commissioner by filing first appeal, however, with a ITA No.668/M/2024 Mr. Gordhanbhai G. Kalathiya 3 delay of 206 days. The Assessee in support of its claim failed to file any supporting evidence like affidavit etc. and therefore the Ld. Commissioner not only dismissed the appeal of the Assessee as time barred being not maintainable but also proceeded to decide the appeal of the Assessee on merits as well. The Ld. Commissioner duly recorded in the impugned order that two e- notices for providing written submissions were issued to the Assessee on 02.03.2021 and 15.12.2022, which remained uncomplied with till date i.e. passing of the impugned order on 23.03.2023 and therefore construed that the Assessee did not have anything to furnish in rebuttal of the AO’s contention in the assessment order and nor have anything to substantiate its contentions. The Ld. Commissioner ultimately affirmed the assessment order passed u/s 144 r.w.s. 147 of the Act by holding the same as a valid order. 5. This Court has given thoughtful considerations to the reasons given by the Ld. Commissioner in dismissing the appeal of the Assessee in limine on the point of limitation and upholding the assessment order and therefore is inclined not to interfere in the decision of the Ld. Commissioner as the same is neither suffers from any perversity, impropriety and/or illegality. Thus, the appeal filed by the Assessee is liable to be dismissed, however, with liberty to the Assessee to seek recall of this order by establishing valid reason for non-appearance. ITA No.668/M/2024 Mr. Gordhanbhai G. Kalathiya 4 6. In the result, the appeal filed by the Assessee stands dismissed in the aforesaid terms with liberty as mentioned above. Order pronounced in the open court on 30.01.2025. Sd/- (NARENDER KUMAR CHOUDHRY) JUDICIAL MEMBER * Kishore, Sr. P.S. Copy to: The Appellant The Respondent The CIT, Concerned, Mumbai The DR Concerned Bench //True Copy// By Order Dy/Asstt. Registrar, ITAT, Mumbai. "