NILESH RAMESH BHURE, MUMBAI V. ACIT -3, MUMBAI

ITA 3004/MUM/2018

• Counselvise Citation: [2019] 112 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 6833 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 9 month(s) 19 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 28-02-2019
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Assessment Year: 2010-2011
• Appeal Filed On: 09-05-2018
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: AJAY PRATAP SINGH
• Keywords: Tangible material
• Section: 143(1); 147

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL SMC BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI SAKTIJIT DEY , JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA NO. 3004 / MUM . /2018 ( ASSESSMENT YEAR : 20 10 11 ) NILESH RAMESH BHURE D 11, PLOT NO.52, VIRANGULA CHS VEER SAVARKAR NAGAR THANE (W), THANE 400 606 PAN AGVPB5383L . APPELLANT V/S ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE 3 , THANE . RESPONDENT ASSESSEE BY : NONE REVENUE BY : SHRI AJAY PRATAP SINGH DATE OF HEARING 2 7 . 0 2 .201 9 DATE OF ORDER 28.02.2019 O R D E R THE A FORESAID APPEAL HA S BEEN FILED BY THE ASSESSEE CHALLENGING ORDER DATED 5 TH DECEMBER 2017, PASSED BY THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER (APPEALS) 2 , PUNE, FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 20 10 11 . 2 . WHEN THE APPEAL WAS CALLED FOR HEARING, NO ONE WAS PRESENT ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE IN SPITE OF SERVICE OF HEARING NOTICE WHICH IS EVIDENT FROM THE POSTAL ACKNOWLEDGE MENT KEPT ON RECORD. EVEN, NO 2 NILESH RAMESH BHURE APPLICATION HAS BEEN FILED BY THE ASSESSEE SEEKING ADJOURNMENT OF THE APPEAL. IN VIEW OF THE AFORESAID, I PROCEED TO DISPOSE OF THE APPEAL EX PARTE QUA THE ASSESSEE AFTER HEARING THE LEARNED DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE. 3 . T HE DISPUTE IN THE PRESENT APPEAL IS CONFINED TO THE ADDITION OF AN AMOUNT OF ` 3,34,986, ON ACCOUNT OF NON GENUINE PURCHASES. 4 . BRIEF FACTS ARE, THE ASSESSEE IS , AN INDIVIDUAL , IS ENGAGED IN THE BUSINESS OF CARRYING OUT ELECTRICAL CONTRACTS ON TURNKEY BASIS THROUGH HIS PROPRIETARY CONCERN M/S. YASHASHVI ENTERPRISES. FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR UNDER DISPUTE, THE ASSESSEE FILED HIS RETURN OF INCOME ON 22 ND SEPTEMBER 2010, DECLARING TOTAL INCOME OF ` 12,77,157. THE RETURN OF INCOME FILED BY THE ASSESSEE UNDER SECTION 143(1) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 (FOR SHORT THE ACT ). SUBSEQUENTLY, ON THE BASIS OF INFORMATION RECEIVED FROM THE SALES TAX DEPARTM ENT, GOVERNMENT OF MAHARASHTRA, THAT PURCHASES OF ` 3,34,986, CLAIMED TO HAVE BEEN MADE BY THE ASSESSEE FROM FIVE PARTIES DURING THE RELEVANT PREVIOUS YEAR ARE NON GENUINE, THE ASSESSING OFFICER RE OPENED THE ASSESSMENT UNDER SECTION 147 OF THE ACT. DURING THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, THE ASSESSING OFFICER CALLED UPON THE ASSESSEE TO PROVE THE GENUINENESS OF PURCHASES BY FURNISHING PROPER DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCES. AS ALLEGED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER, THE ASSESSEE FAILED TO FURNISH ANY CREDIBLE EVIDENCE TO PROVE THE GENUINENESS OF PURCHASES. 3 NILESH RAMESH BHURE THE ASSESSING OFFICER OBSERVED THAT AS PER THE INFORMATION OBTAINED FROM THE SALES TAX DEPARTMENT, THE SELLING PARTIES FROM WHOM THE ASSESSEE CLAIMED TO HAVE MADE THE PURCHASES WERE IDENTIFIED AS HAWALA OPERATORS PROVIDING AC COMMODATION BILLS WITHOUT PHYSICAL DELIVERY OF GOODS. SINCE THE ASSESSEE FAILED TO FURNISH ANY EVIDENCE TO PROVE THE PURCHASES , THE ASSESSING OFFICER TREATED THE PURCHASES OF ` 3,34,986, AS NON GENUINE AND ADDED BACK TO THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE. 5 . THOUGH, THE ASSESSEE FILED APPEAL BEFORE THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER (APPEALS) CHALLENGING THE AFORESAID ADDITION, HOWEVER, HE ALSO SUSTAINED THE ADDITION MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. 6 . I HAVE CONSIDERED SUBMISSIONS OF THE LEARNED DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE AND PE RUSED MATERIAL ON RECORD. IT IS EVIDENT, THE ASSESSING O FFICER HAD SPECIFIC INFORMATION/ TANGIBLE MATERIAL BEFORE HIM TO INDICATE THAT PURCHASES MADE OF ` 3,34,986, WAS NOT GENUINE. THEREFORE, HE CALLED UPON THE ASSESSEE TO PROVE THE GENUINENESS OF PURCHASE THROUGH PROPER DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCES. HOWEVER, AS OBSERVED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER , THE ASSESSEE DID NOT FURNI SH ANY EVIDENCE TO PROVE THE GENUINENESS OF PURCHASES MADE THROUGH PROPER DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCES. AS IT APPEARS, EVEN THE ASSESSEE DID NOT FILE Q UANTITATIVE STATEMENT TO CO RELATE THE PURCHASES WITH SALE S . THE FACTS REMAINED SAME BEFORE THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER (APPEALS). EVEN 4 NILESH RAMESH BHURE BEFORE ME, THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT APPEARED AND FURNISHED ANY EVIDENCE TO CONTROVERT THE CONCURRENT FACTUAL FINDING OF THE DEP ARTMENTAL AUTHORITIES. IN VIEW OF THE AFORESAID, I DO NOT FIND ANY REASON TO INTERFERE WITH THE DECISION OF THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER (APPEALS) ON THE ISSUE IN CONFIRMING THE ADDITION MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. AS REGARDS THE ISSUE RELATING TO RE OPENIN G OF ASSESSMENT UNDER SECTION 147 OF THE ACT, IT IS EVIDENT , THE PURCHASES MADE BY THE ASSESSEE WERE NOT VERIFIED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER EARLIER SINCE THE RETURN OF INCOME FILED BY THE ASSESSEE WAS PROCESSED UNDER SECTION 143(1) OF THE ACT. SUBSEQUENTLY, ON TH E BASIS OF TANGIBLE INFORMATION/ MATERIAL, THE ASSESSING OFFICER CAME TO KNOW THAT INCOME HAS ESCAPED ASSESSMENT ON ACCOUNT OF NON GENUINE PURCHASES CLAIMED BY THE ASSESSEE. THAT BEING THE CASE, THE VALIDITY OF RE OPENING OF ASSESSMENT CANNOT BE CHALL ENGED. ACCORDINGLY, GROUNDS RAISED ARE DISMISSED. 7 . IN THE RESULT, ASSESSEES APPEAL IS DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 28.02.2019 SD/ SAKTIJIT DEY JUDICIAL MEMBER MUMBAI, DATED: 28.02.2019 5 NILESH RAMESH BHURE 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