RAMESH H. BHANSALI, MUMBAI V. ITO 19(3)(1),

ITA 2353/MUM/2017

• Counselvise Citation: [2017] 126 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 9209 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 6 month(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 04-10-2017
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Assessment Year: 2009-2010
• Appeal Filed On: 03-04-2017
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: SMITA VERMALD
• Assessee Lawyers: VIMAL SETHIYA LD
• Section: 143(3); 142(1); 133(6); 143(2); 148

Judgement Text

1 - IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL SMC BENCH, MUMBAI , , BEFORE HONBLE SHRI SAKTIJIT DEY, JM AND HONBLE SHRI MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL, AM (HEARING THROUGH VIDEO CONFERENCING MODE) ./ I.T.A. NO.2353/MUM/2017 ( / ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2009-10) SHRI RAMESH H. BHANSALI 105, MUKUND MANSION V.P. ROAD, NEW C.P. TANK CIRCLE MUMBAI 400 004. / VS. ITO - 19(3)(1) MATRU MANDIR, 2 ND FLOOR OPP. BHATIA HOSPITAL MUMBAI 400 007. $% # ./ # ./PAN/GIR NO. AEKPB-5882-K ( ' %' /APPELLANT ) : ( ()%' / RESPONDENT ) ASSESSEE BY : SHRI VIMAL SETHIYA, LD. AR REVENUE BY : MS. SMITA VERMA LD. SR. DR / DATE OF HEARING : 16/03/2021 / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 16/03/2021 / O R D E R PER MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) 1. AFORESAID MATTER IS A RECALLED MATTER VIDE MA NO .275/MUM/2020 ORDER DATED 01/02/2021. THIS APPEAL BY ASSESSEE FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2009-10 CONTEST THE ORDER OF LD. COMMISSIONER OF IN COME TAX (APPEALS)- 30, MUMBAI [IN SHORT CIT(A) ] ORDER DATED 24/02/201 7, WHICH HAS RESTRICTED ADDITION ON ACCOUNT OF ALLEGED BOGUS PUR CHASES TO THE EXTENT OF 6.5%. 2.1 WE HAVE CAREFULLY HEARD THE ARGUMENTS URGED BEF ORE US. THE MATERIAL FACTS ARE THAT THE ASSESSEE BEING RESIDENT INDIVIDUAL STATED TO BE 2 ENGAGED IN TRADING OF FERROUS & NON-FERROUS METALS WAS ASSESSED FOR THE YEAR U/S. 143(3) R.W.S. 147 ON 13/03/2015. THE ASSE SSMENT WAS SO FRAMED PURSUANT TO RECEIPT OF CERTAIN INFORMATION F ROM SALES TAX DEPARTMENT THAT THE ASSESSEE PROCURED ACCOMMODATION PURCHASE BILLS AGGREGATING TO RS.204.37 LACS FROM 23 ENTITIES AS D ETAILED IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER. ACCORDINGLY, NOTICE U/S 148 WAS I SSUED ON 28/02/2014 WHICH WAS FOLLOWED BY STATUTORY NOTICES U/S. 143(2) AND 142(1) CALLING REQUISITE INFORMATION FROM ASSESSEE WITH RESPECT TO PURCHASES. 2.2 THOUGH THE ASSESSEE FILED CERTAIN DOCUMENTARY E VIDENCES, HOWEVER, NOTICES ISSUED U/S. 133(6) DID NOT ELICIT SATISFACTORY RESPONSE. AFTER CONSIDERING FACTUAL MATRIX, LD. AO APPLYING T HE RATIO OF HON'BLE GUJARAT HIGH COURT IN CIT VS. SIMIT P. SHETH [356 ITR 451], ESTIMATED ADDITIONS AGAINST THESE PURCHASES @12.5%. 3. THE LD. CIT(A), KEEPING IN VIEW THE LOWER RATE O F VAT ON METALS, DIRECTED LD. AO TO RESTRICT THE ADDITION TO THE EXT ENT OF 6.5%. STILL AGGRIEVED, THE ASSESSEE IS IN FURTHER APPEAL BEFORE US. 4. AFTER GOING THROUGH FACTUAL MATRIX, WE FIND THAT IT WAS A FIT CASE TO MAKE ESTIMATED ADDITIONS IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSESS EE. THE ESTIMATION OF 12.5% HAS ALREADY BEEN SUBSTANTIALLY REDUCED TO 6.5% BY LD. CIT(A) WHICH WAS QUITE FAIR AND REASONABLE. FINDING NO REA SON TO INTERFERE IN THE IMPUGNED ORDER, WE DISMISS THE APPEAL. 5. THE APPEAL STANDS DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON16TH MARCH, 20 21. SD/- SD/- (SAKTIJIT DEY) (MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL) / JUDICIAL MEMBER / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER 3 MUMBAI; DATED : 16/03/2021 SR.PS, JAISY VARGHESE ! / COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. ' %'/ THE APPELLANT 2. ()%'/ THE RESPONDENT 3. !! (' ) / THE CIT(A) 4. !! / CIT CONCERNED 5. Z[ (\, !' \, / DR, ITAT, M UMBAI 6. []_ / GUARD FILE / BY ORDER, / (DY./ASSTT.REGISTRAR) , / ITAT, MUMBAI.