PRATAPRAM CHOUDHARY, MUMBAI V. ITO WD 19(2)(5), MUMBAI

ITA 304/MUM/2016

• Counselvise Citation: [2017] 126 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 8624 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 9 month(s) 14 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 02-11-2017
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: Not Allotted
• Assessment Year: 2009-2010
• Appeal Filed On: 19-01-2016
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: RAJAT MITTALDR
• Keywords: Bogus purchase

Judgement Text

, , , IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCHES, C MUMBAI , , , BEFORE SHRI JOGINDER SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER, AND SHRI RAJESH KUMAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO.304/MUM/2016 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2009-10 PRATAPRAM CHOUDHARY, ROOM NO.208, 55-60 SHREE SWAMY SAMARTH, 02 ND KUMBHARWADA, MUMBAI-400004 / VS. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-19(2)(5), ROOM NO.210, 02 ND FLOOR, MATRU MANDIR, MUMBAI-400007 ( ! ' /ASSESSEE) ( # / REVENUE) PAN. NO. AGSPC8984F #$ % ' & / DATE OF HEARING : 02/11/2017 % ' & / DATE OF ORDER: 02/11/2017 ! ' ! / ASSESSEE BY NONE # ! / REVENUE BY SHRI RAJAT MITTAL-DR ITA NO. 304/MUM/2016 PRATAPRAM CHOUDHARY 2 / O R D E R PER JOGINDER SINGH (JUDICIAL MEMBER) THE ASSESSEE IS IN APPEAL, CHALLENGING THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 20/11/2015 OF THE LD. FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORI TY, MUMBAI, UPHOLDING THE PENALTY OF RS.28,55,933/- IMP OSED U/S 271(1)(C) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 (HEREINAFTER THE ACT). 2. DURING HEARING, NONE WAS PRESENT FOR THE ASSESS EE IN SPITE OF RECEIPT OF NOTICE AS IS EVIDENT FROM THE A CKNOWLEDGMENT (SIGNED ON 19/01/2016). THE ASSESSEE NEITHER PRESEN TED HIMSELF NOR MOVED ADJOURNMENT PETITION. IT SEEMS TH AT THE ASSESSEE HAS NOTHING TO SAY THEREFORE, WE HAVE NO O PTION BUT TO PROCEED EX-PARTE, QUA THE ASSESSEE, AND TEND TO DIS POSE OF THIS APPEAL ON THE BASIS OF MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD . THE LD. DR, SHRI RAJAT MITTAL STRONGLY DEFENDED THE ADDITION BY INVITING OUR ATTENTION TO THE FACTUAL FINDING RECORDED IN THE IM PUGNED ORDER AS WELL AS PENALTY ORDER. 2.1. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE SUBMISSIONS OF LD. DR AND PERUSED THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. IT IS NOT ED THAT (PARA- 5.2 OF THE IMPUGNED ORDER) THE ADDITION MADE WITH R ESPECT TO BOGUS PURCHASES WAS CONFIRMED BY THE TRIBUNAL AS TH E ASSESSEE COULD NOT ESTABLISH THE GENUINENESS OF THE PURCHASES ITA NO. 304/MUM/2016 PRATAPRAM CHOUDHARY 3 FROM CHIRAG CORPORATION AND THE AMOUNT WAS OUTSTAND ING AT THE YEAR END. THUS, THE INGREDIENTS OF SECTION 271( 1)(C) OF THE ACT WERE NOT FULFILLED BY THE ASSESSEE AS THERE IS FURNISHING OF INACCURATE PARTICULARS RESULTING INTO CONCEALMENT O F INCOME. THE CONCERNED PARTY ALSO DID NOT APPEAR BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER FOR CONFIRMATION WITH RESPECT TO SUPPLY OF GOODS TO THE ASSESSEE. THUS, THE BOGUS NATURE OF CLAIMED PURCHAS ES OF GOODS REMAINED UNSUBSTANTIATED. THE CONTENTS OF TH E CLAIM FILED IN THE RETURN WITH RESPECT TO THESE BOGUS PUR CHASES ALSO REMAINED UNSUBSTANTIATED, THEREFORE, WE AFFIRM THE PENALTY LEVIED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND SUSTAINED BY TH E LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEAL). RESULTANTLY, T HE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS DISMISSED. FINALLY, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS DISMISSED. THIS ORDER WAS PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT IN TH E PRESENCE OF THE LD. DR AT THE CONCLUSION OF THE HEA RING ON 02/11/2017. SD/- SD/- ( RAJESH KUMAR ) (JOGINDER SINGH) '!# / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER $!# /JUDICIAL MEMBER $ MUMBAI; ( DATED : 02/11/2017 F{X~{T? P.S / /. .. ITA NO. 304/MUM/2016 PRATAPRAM CHOUDHARY 4 %$&'()(*& / COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. *+,- / THE APPELLANT (RESPECTIVE ASSESSEE) 2. ./ ,- / THE ASSESSEE. 3. 0 0 1' ( *+ ) / THE CIT, MUMBAI. 4. 0 0 1' / CIT(A)- , MUMBAI, 5. 3#4 .' , 0 *+& * 5 , $ / DR, ITAT, MUMBAI 6. 6 7$ / GUARD FILE. ! / BY ORDER, /3+' .' //TRUE COPY// /! (DY./ASSTT. REGISTRAR) , $ / ITAT, MUMBAI