ATUL SHANTILAL MARADIA, MUMBAI V. A.C.I.T. CENTRAL CIRCLE 20, MUMBAI

ITA 2602/MUM/2012

• Counselvise Citation: [2017] 127 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 9691 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 5 year(s) 3 month(s) 13 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 31-07-2017
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Next Hearing Date: 16-02-2016
• Assessment Year: 2008-2009
• Appeal Filed On: 17-04-2012
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: MUM; SAURABH KUMAR RAI D R ITA NO S
• Assessee Lawyers: N O N E
• Keywords: Bogus purchase; Search and seizure; Salary income; Opportunity of being heard; Wrong claim
• Section: 153A; 132

Judgement Text

, , IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL I , BENCH , MUMBAI , , , BEFORE SHRI RAJENDRA, AM AND SHRI RAM LAL NEGI, JM ./ ITA NO. 2602 / MUM/ 201 2 ( / ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2008 - 09 ) SH. ATUL SHANTILAL MARADIA, 6/64, NAVJIVAN SOCIETY, LAMINGTON ROAD, MUMBAI CENTRAL, MUMBAI - 400008 VS. THE ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE - 20, MUMBAI ./ ./ PAN/GIR NO. : ADYPM 7131 K ( / APPELLANT ) .. ( / RESPONDENT ) ./ ITA NO. 2603 / MUM/ 201 2 ( / ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2009 - 10 ) SH. ATUL SHANTILAL MARADIA, 6/64, NAVJIVAN SOCIETY, LAMINGTON ROAD, MUMBAI CENTRAL, MUMBAI - 400008 VS. THE A CIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE - 20, MUMBAI ./ ./ PAN/GIR NO. : ADYPM 7131 K ( / APPELLANT ) .. ( / RESPONDENT ) ./ ITA NO. 1059 / MUM/ 201 5 ( / ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2008 - 09 ) SH. ATUL SHANTILAL MARADIA, 6/64, NAVJIVAN SOCIETY, LAMINGTON ROAD, MUMBAI CENTRAL, MUMBAI - 400008 VS. THE DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE - 20, MUMBAI ./ ./ PAN/GIR NO. : ADYPM 7131 K ( / APPELLANT ) .. ( / RESPONDENT ) / ASSESSEE BY : N ONE / REVENUE BY : SHRI SAURABH KUMAR RAI (D R) 2 ITA NO S 2602 & 2603/MUM/2012 AND ITA NO. 1059 /MUM/201 5 ASSESSMENT YEAR S : 20 08 - 09 & 2009 - 10 / DATE OF HEARING : 31 / 0 7 /201 7 / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 31 /07 /2017 / O R D E R PER RAM LAL NEGI, JM T HESE APPEALS PERTAIN TO THE APPELLANT/ ASSESSEE FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR S 2008 - 09 AND 2009 - 10. VIDE ITA NO. 2602/MUM/2012 AND ITA NO. 2603/MUM/2012, THE ASSESSEE HAS CHALLENGED THE ORDERS DATED 20/01/2012 PASSED BY THE LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) - 39, MUMBAI, WHEREBY THE LD. COMMISS IONER HAS DISMISSED THE APPEALS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AGAINST THE ASSESSMENT ORDERS PASSED U/S 143 (3) R.W.S. 153 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 (FOR SHORT THE ACT), PERTAINING TO THE ASSESSMENT YEARS 2008 - 09 AND 2009 - 10 RESPECTIVELY . VIDE ITA NO. 1059/MU / 2015 THE ASSESSEE HAS CHALLENGED THE ORDER DATED 30/12/2014, WH E REBY THE LD. CIT (A) - 51, MUMBAI HAS DISMISSED THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AGAINST PENALTY ORDER PASSED U/S 271 (C) OF THE ACT PERTAINING TO THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2008 - 09 . 2. THESE CASES WERE FIXED FOR TODAY FOR HEARING. HOWEVER, WHEN THE CASE WAS CALLED, NEITHER THE ASSESSEE NOR HIS AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE APPEARED. WE NOTICE THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD BEEN SEEKING ADJOURNMENTS. KEEPING IN VIEW THE CONDUCT OF THE ASSESSEE , THIS BENCH ALLOWE D THE APPLICATION FOR ADJOURNMENT ON 17/11/2016, H O WEVER, MADE IT CLEAR THAT NO FURTHER ADJOURNMENT WOULD BE ALLOWED. DESPITE THIS, THE ASSESSEE HA S SOUGHT THREE ADJOURNMENTS ON 30/01/2017, 11/05/2017 AND 05/07/2017 . TODAY WE FIND THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS AGA IN SUBMITTED AN APPLICATION FOR ADJOURNMENT. W E ARE CONVINCED FROM THE CONDUCT OF THE ASSESSEE THAT THE ASSESSEE IS NOT INTERESTED IN PURSUING ITS APPEALS. WE THEREFORE, DISMISS ED THE SAID APPLICATION AND 3 ITA NO S 2602 & 2603/MUM/2012 AND ITA NO. 1059 /MUM/201 5 ASSESSMENT YEAR S : 20 08 - 09 & 2009 - 10 DECIDED TO DISPOSE OF THESE CASES ON THE BASIS OF M ATERIAL ON RECORD AFTER HEARING THE DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE. ITA NO . 2602/MUM/2012 (ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2008 - 09) BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT THE APPELLANT/ASSESSEE AN INDIVIDUAL HAVING INCOME FROM SALARY AND BUSINESS FROM HIS PROPRIETORSHIP BUSINE SS JAIN METALS FILED ITS RETURN OF INCOME FOR THE A.Y. 2008 - 09 DECLARING THE TOTAL INCOME OF RS. 17,50,590/ - . THERE WAS A SEARCH AND SEIZURE ACTION U/S 132 (A) CARRIED OUT IN THE CASE OF NISSAN COPPER LTD. GROUP ON 16/01/2009 AND THE ASSESSEE BEING A MEM BER OF THIS GROUP WAS COVERED UNDER THE SEARCH ACTION. I N RESPONSE TO NOTICE U/S 153A OF THE ACT, THE ASSESSEE FILED THE RETURN DECLARING THE TOTAL INCOME AS DECLARED IN ITS ORIGINAL RETURN. DURING THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, IT WAS OBSERVED THAT DURING TH E SEARCH A CONFESSIONAL LETTER WRITTEN BY MR. SANJAY MARADIA, CHAIRMAN OF THE COMPANY HAD BEEN SEIZED. THIS LETTER WAS WRITTEN TO THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF SALES TAX (INV. - II). IN THE SAID LETTER, IT WAS ADMITTED THAT THE PURCHASES MADE FROM THE 12 PAR TIES MENTIONED THEREIN WERE NOT GENUINE. THE ASSESSEE HAD SHOWN PURCHASE S OF RS. 6,21,87,187/ - FROM THESE PARTIES DURING THE FINANCIAL YEAR RELEVANT TO THE ASSESSMENT YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION . ACCORDINGLY, AO ISSUED SHOW CAUSE NOTICE TO THE ASSESSEE AS TO WHY THE PURCHASES MADE FROM THESE PARTIES SHOULD NOT BE TREATED AS BOGUS AND THE AMOUNT SHOULD NOT BE ADDED TO THE TOTAL INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE. THE ASSESSEE CONTENDED THAT THE PURCHASES MADE FROM THE SAID PARTIES WERE GENUINE, THE ASSESSEE FURTHER STATED THAT THE OFFICIALS OF THE SALE TAX DEPARTMENT VISITED THEIR PLACE DU E TO THE FACT THAT THE SAID PARTIES HAD NOT PAID THE SALE TAX (VAT) COLLECTED FROM THEM. HOWEVER, AFTER DELIBERATIONS AND DISCUSSIONS, THE ASSESSEE AGREED TO PAY TO SALE TAX TO AVOID FURT HER LITIGATION. THE ASSESSEE FURTHER CONTENDED THAT DURING THE COURSE OF 4 ITA NO S 2602 & 2603/MUM/2012 AND ITA NO. 1059 /MUM/201 5 ASSESSMENT YEAR S : 20 08 - 09 & 2009 - 10 SEARCH SH. RATAN LAL MARADIA, HAD INADVERTENTLY STATED THAT THE PURCHASES FROM THESE PARTIES WERE OVER INVOICED BY 10% OF THE PURCHASE VALUE. DURING THE PROCEEDING S U/S 153 A OF THE AC T, NOTICES U/S 133 (6) WERE ISSUED TO THE CONCERNED PARTIES, BUT ALL THE NOTICES RECEIVED BACK UN - SERVED . FURTHER, THE AO DEPUTED THE INCOME TAX INSPECTOR S TO VISIT THE PREMISES OF THESE PARTIES FOR SPOT VERIFICATION . THE INSPECTORS VISITED THE RESPECTIVE PLACES OF THE PARTIES , HOWEVER, NONE OF THEM WAS FOUND AT THE GIVEN ADDRESS. SHRI RATAN LAL MARADIA , DIRECTOR OF THE COMPANY DISCLOSED THAT PURCHASES IN QUESTION WERE GENUINE, HOWEVER, BILLS WERE PROVIDED BY THE SAID PARTIES AND THE PURCHASES WERE OVER IN VOICED ROUGHLY BY 10%. T HE AO REJECTING THE CONTENTION OF THE ASSESSEE ADDED THE AMOUNT OF RS. 93,28,078/ - TO THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE HOLDING THAT THE SAID 12 PARTIES OVER - INVOICED THE BILL BY 15% AND NOT 10% . 2. AGGRIEVED BY THE ASSESSMENT ORDER, TH E ASSESSEE CARRIED THE MATTER TO THE CIT (A) IN FIRST APPEAL. THE LD. CIT (A) AFTER HEARING THE ASSESSEE DISMISSED THE APPEAL AND CONFIRMED THE ACTION OF THE AO. STILL AGGRIEVED, THE ASSESSEE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL . 3. THE ASSESSEE HAS CHALL ENGED THE IMPUGNED ORDER ON THE FOLLOWING E F FECTIVE GROUND S : - . 1. ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE APPELLANTS CASE AND IN LAW THE LEARNED CIT (A) ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE ADDITION OF RS. 93,28,078/ - MADE BY THE AO ON ACCOUNT OF ALLEGED OVER INVOICING I N PURCHASES. 4. BEFORE US, THE LD. DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE (DR) RELYING ON THE ORDER PASSED BY THE LD. CIT(A) SUBMITTED THAT THE SINCE THE IMPUGNED ORDER DOES NO T SUFFER FROM ANY INFIRMITY, THERE IS NO MERIT IN THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE. 5 ITA NO S 2602 & 2603/MUM/2012 AND ITA NO. 1059 /MUM/201 5 ASSESSMENT YEAR S : 20 08 - 09 & 2009 - 10 5. WE HAV E GONE THROUGH THE MATERIAL ON RECORD IN THE LIGHT OF THE ISSUES RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE IN THE APPEAL AND THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE LD. (DR). THE LD. CIT(A) HAS PASSED THE ORDER AFTER HEARING THE ASSESSEE AND TAKING INTO CONSIDERATION THE CONTENTION OF THE AS SESSEE. THE OPERATIVE PART OF THE ORDER PASSED BY THE LD. CIT (A) READS AS UNDER: - 7. I HAVE CONSIDERED THE ISSUE. IN THIS CASE THE APPELLANT HAS SHOWN THAT HE HAD PURCHASED THE MATERIALS FROM 12 PARTIES. BEFORE THE SALES TAX AUTHORITIES AND BEFORE TH E I.T. AUTHORITIES DURING THE SEARCH, THE ASSESSEE GROUP HAS ADMITTED THAT THE ACTUAL PURCHASES WERE NOT MADE FROM THESE PARTIES AND ONLY ACCOMMODATION BILLS WERE OBTAINED FROM THESE 12 PARTIES BUT ACTUAL PURCHASES WERE MADE FROM OTHER PARTIES AND IN THAT PROCESS THE PURCHASE PRICES WERE OVERSTATED BY 10%. FURTHER IT IS ALSO SEEN THAT ENQUIRY NOTICES ISSUED U/S 133 (6) WERE RETURNED UNSERVED STATING THAT NO SUCH PERSON EXISTS THERE. THE INCOME TAX INSPECTORS HAS ALSO MADE ENQUIRES AND FOUND THAT NO SUCH PER SON EXISTED AND DID ACTUAL BUSINESS FROM THAT ADDRESSES. FROM THESE FACTS IT IS VERY CLEAR THAT THE PURCHASE BILLS ARE NOT GENUINE AND ACTUAL PURCHASES WERE NOT MADE FROM THESE 12 PARTIES. IT IS ALSO NO KNOWN HOW MUCH PURCHASE EXPENSES WERE INFLATED. THE A PPELLANT HAS ADMITTED DURING STATEMENT U/S 132 (4) THAT PURCHASE PRICES WERE INFLATED BY 10%. THE APPELLANT COULD NOT PRODUCE ANY EVIDENCE TO SHOW THAT THE PURCHASE PRICE IS INFLATED ONLY BY 10%. SO HOW MUCH THE APPELLANT INFLATED THE PURCHASE PRICE IS PUR ELY GUESS WORK. IT MAY BE 100%, IT MAY BE 10%, IT MAY BE 15%, OR IT MAY BE 20%. IN THE ABSENCE OF EVIDENCE, THE DISALLOWANCE HAS TO BE MADE ON ESTIMATE BASIS. THE AO HAS REASONABLY ESTIMATED AT 15%. I FEEL THAT THE ESTIMATION MADE BY THE A.O. IS REASONABLE AND THERE IS NO EVIDENCE PRODUCED BY THE APPELLANT TO PROVE THAT THE INFLATED PRICE IS ONLY BY 10%. IN VIEW OF THIS APPELLANTS SUBMISSIONS ARE REJECTED AND THE A.O.S ORDER IS UPHELD. 6 ITA NO S 2602 & 2603/MUM/2012 AND ITA NO. 1059 /MUM/201 5 ASSESSMENT YEAR S : 20 08 - 09 & 2009 - 10 6. WE ARE OF THE CONSIDERED OPINION THAT THE ORDER PASSED BY THE LD. CIT(A) IS BASED ON THE EVIDENCE ON RECORD AND IN ACCORD ANCE WITH THE PRINCIPLES OF LAW. NO MATERIAL FACT HAS COME TO OUR NOTICE ON THE BASIS OF WHICH IT CAN BE CONCLUDED SAFELY THAT THE FINDINGS OF THE LD. CIT(A) IS CONTRARY TO THE FACTS OF THE CASE OR TH E EVIDENCE OF RECORD. UNDER THESE CIRCUMSTANCES, WE ARE INCLINED TO AGREE WITH THE LD. CIT(A). HENCE, WE UPHOLD THE FINDINGS OF THE LD. CIT(A) AND DISMISS THE SOLE GROUND OF THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE. ITA NO. 2603/MUM/2012 (ASSESSMENT YEAR 2009 - 10) T HE FACTS OF THE CASE AND THE ISSUES INVOLVED IN THE PRESENT CASE ARE IDENTICAL TO THE FACTS AND ISSUES INVOLVED IN THE ASSESSEES OWN CASE ITA NO 2602/MUM/2012 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2008 - 09, EXCEPT THE QUANTUM OF AMOUNT INVOLVED. HENCE, WE DO NOT CONSIDE R IT NECESSARY TO REPEAT THE SAME FACTS HERE. 2. THE ASSESSEE HAS CHALLENGED THE IMPUGNED ORDER ON THE FOLLOWING EFFECTIVE GROUNDS: - . 1. ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE APPELLANTS CASE AND IN LAW THE LEARNED CIT (A) ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE ADDITION OF RS. 5,70,926/ - MADE BY THE AO ON ACCOUNT OF ALLEGED OVER INVOICING IN PURCHASE. 3. THE LD. CIT(A) AFTER HEARING THE ASSESSEE HAS DISMISSED THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE HOLDING AS UNDER: 7. I HAVE CONSIDERED THE ISSUE. IN THIS CASE THE APPELLANT HAS SHOWN THAT HE HAD MADE PURCHASES FROM PARAS STEEL INDIA. BEFORE THE SALES TAX AUTHORITIES AND BEFORE THE I.T. AUTHORITIES DURING THE SEARCH, THE ASSESSEE GROUP HAS ADMITTED THAT THE ACTUAL PURCHASES WERE NOT MADE FROM 7 ITA NO S 2602 & 2603/MUM/2012 AND ITA NO. 1059 /MUM/201 5 ASSESSMENT YEAR S : 20 08 - 09 & 2009 - 10 THESE PARTIES AND ONLY ACCOMMODATION BILLS WERE OBTAINED FROM THESE 12 PARTIES BUT ACTUAL PURCHASES WERE MADE FROM OTHER PARTIES AND IN THAT PROCESS THE PURCHASE PRICES WERE OVERSTATED BY 10%. FURTHER IT IS ALSO SEEN THAT ENQUIRY NOTICES U/S 133 (6) WERE RETURNED UNSERVED STATING THAT NO SUCH PERSON EXISTS THERE. THE INCOME TAX INSPECTORS HAS ALSO MADE ENQUIRES AND FOUND THAT NO SUCH PERSON EXISTED AND DID ACTUAL BUSINESS FROM THAT ADDRESSES. FROM THESE FACTS IT IS VERY CLEAR THAT THE PURCHASE BILLS ARE NOT GENUINE AND ACTUAL PURCHASES WERE NO T MADE FROM THESE 12 PARTIES. IT IS ALSO NOT KNOWN HOW MUCH PURCHASE EXPENSES WERE INFLATED. THE APPELLANT HAS ADMITTED DURING STATEMENT U/S 132 (4) THAT PURCHASE PRICES W E RE INFLATED BY 10%. THE APPELLANT COULD NOT PRODUCE ANY EVIDENCE TO SHOW THAT THE PU RCHASE PRICE IS INFLATED ONLY BY 10%. SO HOW MUCH THE APPELLANT INFLATED THE PURCHASE PRICE IS PURELY GUESS WORK. IT MAY BE 100% IT MAY BE 10%, IT MAY BE 15% OR IT MAY BE 20%. IN THE ABSENCE OF EVIDENCE, THE DISALLOWANCE HAS TO BE MADE ON ESTIMATE BASIS. THE A.O. HAS REASONABLY ESTIMATED AT 15%. I FEEL THAT THE ESTIMATION MADE BY THE A.O. IS REASONABLE AND THERE IS NO EVIDENCE PRODUCED BY THE APPELLANT TO PROVE THAT THE INFLATED PRICE IS ONLY BY 10%. IN VIEW OF THIS APPELLANTS SUBMISSIONS ARE REJECTED AND THE A.O. ORDER IS UPHELD. 4. SINCE, WE HAVE UPHELD THE FINDINGS OF THE LD. CIT(A) IN ON THE IDENTICAL ISSUE IN ASSESSEES OWN CASE FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2008 - 09 , WE ALSO UPHOLD THE FINDINGS OF THE LD. CIT(A) IN THE PRESENT CASE FOR THE SAME REASONS. ACCORDINGLY, WE DISMISS THE SOLE GROUND OF THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE. ITA NO. 1059/MUM/2015 (ASSESSMENT YEAR 2008 - 09) THIS APPEAL HAS BEEN PREFERRED BY THE ASSESSEE AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A) CONFIRMING THE PENALTY LEVIED BY THE AO U/N 271(1)(C ) OF THE ACT. 8 ITA NO S 2602 & 2603/MUM/2012 AND ITA NO. 1059 /MUM/201 5 ASSESSMENT YEAR S : 20 08 - 09 & 2009 - 10 2. BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT T HERE A SEARCH AND SEIZURE ACTION U/S 132 (A) WAS CARRIED OUT IN THE CASE OF NISSAN COPPER LTD. GROUP ON 16/01/2009 AND THE ASSESSEE BEING A MEMBER OF THIS GROUP WAS COVERED UNDER THE SEARCH ACTION . IN RES PONSE TO NOTICE U/S 153A, THE ASSESSEE FILED HIS RETURN OF INCOME AS DECLARED IN HIS ORIGINAL RETURN. ON THE BASIS OF A CONFESSIONAL LETTER SEIZED DURING SEARCH ACTION, WRITTEN BY MR. SANJAY MARADIA, CHAIRMAN OF THE COMPANY , ADDRESSED TO THE ASSISTANT COMM ISSIONER OF SALES TAX (INV. - II) , VERIFICATION WAS CONDUCTED BY AO. AFTER HEARING THE ASSESSEE, THE AO MADE ADDITION OF RS. 93,28,078/ - ON ACCOUNT OF BOGUS PURCHASES. ACCORDINGLY PENALTY PROCEEDINGS WERE INITIATED AND PENALTY OF RS. 31,70,613/ - U/S 271 (1)( C) OF THE ACT WAS LEVIED HOLDING THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS FURNISHED INACCURATE PARTICULARS OF INCOME WITHIN THE MEANING OF SAID SECTION 271(1)(C) OF THE ACT. AGGRIEVED BY THE PENALTY ORDER, THE ASSESSEE CHALLENGED THE SAME BEFORE THE CIT (A). THE LD.CIT (A) POSTED THE APPEAL FOR HEARING ON SEVERAL OCCASIONS. HOWEVER, NEITHER THE ASSESSEE N OR HIS AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE APPEARED NOR ANY WRITTEN SUBMISSION WAS FILED. ACCORDINGLY, T HE LD. CIT (A) DECIDED THE APPEAL ON THE BASIS OF MATERIAL ON RECORD AND UPHEL D THE ORDER OF THE AO. THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED THE PRESENT APPEAL AGAINST THE SAID ORDER. 3. THE ASSESSEE HAS CHALLENGED THE IMPUGNED ORDER ON THE FOLLOWING EFFECTIVE GROUNDS: - . 1. ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE APPELLANTS CASE AND IN LAW THE LEARNED CIT (A) ERRED IN PASSING THE APPELLANT ORDER WITHOUT AFFORDING ADEQUATE OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD TO THE APPELLANT. 2. ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE APPELLANTS CASE AND IN LAW THE LD. CIT (A) ERRED IN IMPOSING PENALTY OF RS. 31,70,613/ - BY INVOKING THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 271(1)(C) OF THE INCOME TAX, ACT, 1961. 9 ITA NO S 2602 & 2603/MUM/2012 AND ITA NO. 1059 /MUM/201 5 ASSESSMENT YEAR S : 20 08 - 09 & 2009 - 10 4. THE LD. DEPARTMENTAL RELYING ON THE ORDER PASSED BY THE LD. CIT(A) SUBMITTED THAT SINCE THE ASSESSEE HAS CONCEALED THE INCOME BY FURNISHING INACCURATE PARTICULARS, THE LD . CIT(A) HAS RIGHTLY CONFIRMED THE PENALTY LEVIED BY THE AO. 5. WE HAVE PERUSED THE MATERIAL ON RECORD IN THE LIGHT OF THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE AND THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE LD. DR. THE LD. CIT(A) HAS AFFIRMED THE ORDER OF THE AO HOLDING AS UN DER: 4. FROM THE FACTS AS NARRATED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN THE ORDER OF PENALTY, IT IS OBSERVED THAT THE ADDITION IS WITH REFERENCE TO BOGUS PURCHASE BILLS. IT HAS BEEN POINTED OUT BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER THAT THE ASSESSEE GROUP HAD ITSELF ADMITTED THAT THE PURCHASES ARE NOT GENUINE AND THAT ONLY ACCOMMODATION BILLS HAVE BEEN OBTAINED FROM THE PARTIES AS LISTED. IT HAD ALSO BEEN ADMITTED BY THE ASSESSEE IN THE STATEMENT UNDER S. 132 (4) THAT ACTUAL PURCHASES WERE MADE FROM OTHER PARTIES AND THAT THE RE HAS BEEN OVER - INVOICING OF BILLS. THUS, THE ASSESSEE HAS ITSELF ADMITTED TO CONCEALMENT OF INCOME/FURNISHING OF INACCURATE PARTICULARS THROUGH OVER INVOICING OF THE PURCHASE BILLS AND THROUGH MAKING BOGUS CLAIMS OF PURCHASES. IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES, THE A PPELLANT HAS EXPOSED HIMSELF TO THE LEVY OF PENALTY UNDER S. 271 (1)(C) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT. THEREFORE, I AM OF THE VIEW THAT PENALTY HAS BEEN CORRECTLY LEVIED IN THIS CASE. THE PENALTY IMPOSED IN A SUM OF RS. 31,70,613/ - IS CONFIRMED. 6. WE NOTICE THA T THE ASSESSEE DID NOT APPEAR BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A) DESPITE SEVERAL OPPORTUNITIES GIVEN TO THE ASSESSEE TO PRESENT HIS CASE. IN OUR CONSIDERED OPINION THE LD. CIT(A) HAS RIGHTLY UPHELD THE PENALTY LEVIED BY THE AO. NO MATERIAL FACTS HAS COME TO OUR NOTICE TO CONCLUDE THAT THE FINDINGS OF THE LD. CIT(A) ARE NOT IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE SETTLED PRINCIPLES OF LAW. HENCE, 10 ITA NO S 2602 & 2603/MUM/2012 AND ITA NO. 1059 /MUM/201 5 ASSESSMENT YEAR S : 20 08 - 09 & 2009 - 10 WE UPHOLD THE FINDINGS OF THE LD. CIT(A) AND DISMISS BOTH THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE. IN THE RESULT, ALL THE THREE APPEAL S FILED BY THE ASSESSEE FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR S 2008 - 09 AND 2009 - 19 ARE DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 31 ST JULY , 2017. SD/ - SD/ - ( RAJENDRA ) ( RAM LAL NEGI ) ACC OUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER MUMBAI ; DATED: 31 / 07 / 2017 ALINDRA, PS / 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) , / ITAT, MUMBAI