HANSABEN A SHAH, MUMBAI V. ITO WD 19(1)(5), MUMBAI

ITA 1979/MUM/2017

• Counselvise Citation: [2018] 124 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 7241 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 6 month(s) 7 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 28-09-2018
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Assessment Year: 2010-2011
• Appeal Filed On: 21-03-2017
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: SWA
• Keywords: Bogus purchase; Accommodation entries
• Section: 147

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL SMC BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI SAKTIJIT DEY , JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA NO. 1979 / MUM . /2017 ( ASSESSMENT YEAR : 20 10 11 ) HANSABEN A. SHAH 95, PARMAR HOUSE 5 TH KUMBHARWADA MUMBAI 400 004 PAN ABFPS0126F . APPELLANT V/S INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 19(1)(5), MUMBAI . RESPONDENT ASSESSEE BY : NONE REVENUE BY : SHRI S WAPAN KUMAR BEPARI DATE OF HEARING 2 5 .09.2018 DATE OF ORDER 28.09.2018 O R D E R A FORESAID APPEAL HA S BEEN FILED BY THE ASSESSEE CHALLENGING THE ORDER DATED 20 TH FEBRUARY 2017 , PASSED BY THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER (APPEALS) 29 , MUMBAI, FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 20 1 0 11 . 2 . THE DISPUTE IN THE PRESENT APPEAL IS CONFINED TO THE ADDITION MADE ON ACCOUNT OF BOGUS PURCHASES. 3 . B RIEF FACTS ARE, THE ASSESSEE AN INDIVIDUAL IS ENGAGED IN THE BUSINESS OF TRADING IN STEEL AND ALLOY STEEL. FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2 HANSABEN A. SHAH UNDER DISPUTE, THE ASSESSEE FILED HER RETURN OF INCOME ON 13 TH OCTOBER 2010, DECLARING INCOME OF ` 13,23,080. THE RETURN OF I NCOME FILED BY THE ASSESSEE WAS PROCESSED UNDER SECTION 143(1) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 (FOR SHORT THE ACT ) ACCEPTING THE RETURNED INCOME. SUBSEQUENTLY, ON THE BASIS OF INFORMATION RE CEIVED FROM DGIT (INV.), MUMBAI AND THE SALES TAX DEPARTMENT MAHARA S HTRA GOVERNMENT THAT THE ASSESSEE IS A BENEFICIARY OF ACCOMMODATION ENTRIES PROVIDED BY HAWALA O PERATORS TOWARDS BOGUS PURCHASE INVOICES , RE OPENED THE ASSESSMENT UNDER SECTION 147 OF THE ACT. DURING THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, THE ASSESSING OFFICER NOTICI NG THAT AS PER THE INFORMATION FROM THE SALES TAX DEPARTMENT PURCHASES WORTH ` 14,43,676 MADE BY THE ASSESSEE FROM VARIOUS PARTIES ARE NON GENUINE, CALLED UPON THE ASSESSEE TO PROVE THE GENUINENESS OF PURCHASES BY PRODUCING NECESSARY DETAILS AS MENTIONED I N THE ASSESSMENT ORDER. AS OBSERVED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER, THE ASSESSEE , THOUGH , FURNISHED SOME DETAILS, HOWEVER, THE ASSESSEE COULD NOT CONCLUSIVELY PROVE THE GENUINENESS OF PURCHASES. ACCORDINGLY, THE ASSESSING OFFICER PROCEEDED TO TREAT THE PURCHASES MADE BY THE ASSESSEE AS NON GENUINE AND ESTIMATED PROFIT @ 12.5% ON THE TOTAL NON GENUINE PURCHASES OF ` 2,60,27,352 WHICH WORKED OUT TO ` 32,53,420. BEING AGGRIEVED OF SUCH ADDITION , THOUGH , THE ASSESSEE PREFERRED APPEAL BEFORE THE FIRST APPELLATE AUTHOR ITY, HOWEVER, THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER (APPEALS) ALSO SUSTAINED THE ADDITION MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. 3 HANSABEN A. SHAH 4 . WHEN THE APPEAL WAS CALLED FOR HEARING, NO ONE WAS PRESENT FOR THE ASSESSEE IN SPITE OF SERVICE OF NOTICE WHICH IS EVIDENT FROM THE POSTAL ACKNOWLEDGMENT KEPT ON RECORD. THEREFORE, I PROCEED TO DISPOSE OFF THE APPEAL EX PARTE QUA THE ASSESSEE AFTER HEARING THE LEARNED DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE. 5 . I HAVE HEARD THE LEARNED DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE AND PERUSED THE MATERIAL ON RECORD. AS COUL D BE SEEN FROM THE FACTS ON RECORD, THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAD IN HIS POSSESSION SPECIFIC INFORMATION/ MATERIAL INDICATING THAT THE ASSESSEE IS A BENEFICIARY OF ACCOMMODATION ENTRIES PROVIDED BY ENTITIES WHICH ARE IDENTIFIED AS HAWALA OPERATORS BY THE SALES TAX DEPARTMENT OF MAHARASHTRA GOVERNMENT. NEITHER BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER NOR BEFORE THE FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY THE ASSESSEE COULD CONCLUSIVELY PROVE THE GENUINENESS OF PURCHASES CLAIMED TO HAVE BEEN MADE FROM THE CONCERNED PARTIES. EVEN BEFORE ME, BY REMAINING ABSENT ASSESSEE HAS NOT CONTROVERTED THE FACTUAL FINDING OF THE DEPARTMENTAL AUTHORITIES. IN THE AFORESAID FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES, I AM INCLINED TO UPHOLD THE ADDITION MADE @ 12.5% OF THE BOGUS PURCHASES. GROUNDS RAISED ARE DISMISSED. 4 HANSABEN A. SHAH 6 . IN THE RESULT, ASSESSEES APPEAL IS DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 28.08.2018 SD/ - SA KTIJIT DEY JUDICIAL MEMBER MUMBAI, DATED: 28.08.2018 COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : ( 1 ) THE ASSESSEE; ( 2 ) THE REVENUE; ( 3 ) THE CIT(A); ( 4 ) THE CIT, MUMBAI CITY CONCERNED; ( 5 ) THE DR, ITAT, MUMBAI; ( 6 ) GUARD FILE . TRUE COPY BY ORDER PRADEEP J. CHOWDHURY SR. PRIVATE SECRETARY (SR. PRIVATE SECRETARY) ITAT, MUMBAI