PADMARAM R. CHOUDHARY, MUMBAI V. ITO 19(2)(5), MUMBAI

ITA 1733/MUM/2017

• Counselvise Citation: [2017] 126 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 9421 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 6 month(s) 8 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 18-09-2017
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Next Hearing Date: 25-07-2017
• Assessment Year: 2009-2010
• Appeal Filed On: 10-03-2017
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: RAM TIWARI
• Section: 148

Judgement Text

THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL SMC BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI B.R. BASKARAN (AM) I.T.A. NO. 1733 /MUM/ 2017 (ASSESSMENT YEAR 20 09 - 1 0 ) SHRI PADMARAM R. CHOUDHARY PROP. OF M/S. DYNAMIC METALS (INDIA) 9/11, 2 ND FLOOR 2 ND CARPENTER STREET NEAR GOAL DEWO OL MUMBAI - 400 004. PAN :AAGPC7140P VS. ITO 19(2)(5) MUMBAI ( APPELLANT ) ( RESPONDENT ) ASSESSEE BY NONE DEPARTMENT BY SHRI RAM TIWARI DATE OF HEARING 1 8 .9. 201 7 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT 18 . 9 . 201 7 O R D E R THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSE E IS DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 9.1.2017 PASSED BY THE LEARNED CIT(A) - 30, MUMBAI AND IT RELATES TO A.Y. 2009 - 10. 2. NONE APPEARED ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE EVEN THOUGH NOTICE OF HEARING WAS SE N T TO THE ASSESSEE BY REGISTERED POST ON MORE THAN ONE OC CASION. HENCE, I PROCEED TO DISPOSE OF THE APPEAL EX - PARTE, WITHOUT PRESENCE OF THE ASSESSEE. 3. I HEARD LEARNED DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE AND PERUSED THE RECORD. ASSESSEE IS ENGAGED IN THE BUSINESS OF TRADING IN FERROUS AND NON - FERROUS METALS. CONSEQU ENT TO THE INFORMATION RECEIVED FROM THE SALES TAX DEPARTMENT THAT CERTAIN TRADERS ARE INDULGING IN PROVIDING ONLY ACCOMMODATION BILLS WITHOUT ACTUALLY SUPPLYING THE MATERIAL S AND UPON NOTICING THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS PURCHASED GOODS TO THE TUNE OF ` 151.04 LAKHS FROM SUCH DEALERS DURING THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION, THE ASSESSING OFFICER REOPENED THE ASSESSMENT BY ISSUING NOTICE U/S. 148 OF THE ACT. THE ASSESSING OFFICER COMPLETED THE SHRI PADMARAM R. CHOUDHARY 2 ASSESSMENT BY SUSTAINING THE ADDITION TO THE EXTENT OF 12.5% OF THE VALUE OF NON - GENUINE PURCHASES. THE LEARNED CIT(A) ALSO CONFIRMED THE SAME AND HENCE THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED THIS APPEAL BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL. 4. I HAVE GONE THROUGH THE ORDER PASSED BY THE LEARNED CIT(A) AND ALSO HEARD THE CONTENTIONS OF LEARNED DEPARTMENTAL REP RESENTATIVE . I NOTICED THAT THE LEARNED CIT(A) HAS PASSED A REASONED ORDER AND HENCE THE SAME DOES NOT CALL FOR ANY INTERFERENCE. ACCORDINGLY I UPHOLD HIS ORDER. 5. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS DISMISSED. ORDER HAS BE EN PRONOUNC ED IN THE COURT ON 1 8 . 9 . 201 7. SD/ - (B.R.BASKARAN) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER MUMBAI ; DATED : 1 8 / 9 / 20 1 7 COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. THE APPELLANT 2. THE RESPONDENT 3. THE CIT(A) 4. CIT 5. DR, ITAT, MUMBAI 6. GUARD FILE. BY ORDER, //TRUE COPY// ( DY./ASSTT. REGISTRAR) PS ITAT, MUMBAI