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

ITA 3114/MUM/2018

• Counselvise Citation: [2019] 118 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 5815 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 8 month(s) 21 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 01-02-2019
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Assessment Year: 2010-2011
• Appeal Filed On: 11-05-2018
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: VIJAY KUMAR SONI
• Keywords: Bogus purchase
• Section: 133(6)

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCHES SMC, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI A.K. GARODIA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO. A.Y. APPELLANT RESPONDENT 3114/MUM/18 2010-11 SHRI RAMESH H. BHANSALI, 105, MUKUND MANSION, V.P. ROAD, NEW CP TANK CIRCLE, MUMBAI [PAN: AEKPB5882K] THE INCOME TAX OFFICER-19(3)(1), MUMBAI 3115/MUM/18 2011-12 APPELLANT BY : NONE RESPONDENT BY : SHRI VIJAY KUMAR SONI, DR DATE OF HEARING : 30-01-2019 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 01-02-2019 O R D E R BOTH THESE APPEALS ARE FILED BY THE ASSESSEE, WHICH ARE DIRECTED AGAINST TWO SEPARATE ORDERS OF THE LD. COMMI SSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS)-54, MUMBAI, BOTH DATED 20-12 -2017, FOR THE AYS. 2010-11 & 2011-12. SINCE THE FACTS AND IS SUES INVOLVED IN THESE APPEALS ARE COMMON AND IDENTICAL, B OTH THESE APPEALS WERE HEARD TOGETHER AND ARE BEING DISPOS ED OF BY WAY OF THIS COMMON ORDER FOR THE SAKE OF CONVENIEN CE. 2. THESE APPEAL WERE FIXED FOR HEARING ON 30-01-201 9. NOTICES OF HEARING WAS SENT TO THE ASSESSEE BY RPAD ON THE ADDRESS PROVIDED BY THE ASSESSEE IN FORM NO. 36 I.E. THE ITA NOS. 3114 & 3115/MUM/2018 : 2 : APPEAL MEMO. IN SPITE OF NOTICE, NONE APPEARED ON BEH ALF OF THE ASSESSEE AT THE TIME OF HEARING AND THERE WAS NO REQ UEST FOR ADJOURNMENT. THEREFORE, IN THE PRESENT FACTS, THE A PPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE WAS HEARD EX-PARTE QUA THE ASSESSEE. 3. LD. DR FOR THE REVENUE SUPPORTED THE ORDERS OF THE L D. CIT (A). 4. THE GROUNDS RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE IN BOTH THE ASSESSMENT YEARS ARE IDENTICAL. HENCE, THE SAME ARE REPRODUCED HEREIN BELOW FROM THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESS EE FOR THE AY. 2010-11 IN ITA NO. 3114/MUM/2018: 1. THE LEARNED CIT(A)-54 HAS ERRED IN RESTRICTING THE ADDITION MADE BY DIRECTING ASSESSING OFFICER TO ALLOW THE GP ALRE ADY DECLARED BY THE ASSESSEE ON THESE ALLEGED NON-GENUINE PURCHASES INS TEAD OF DELETING THE ADDITION IN ENTIRETY. 5. I HAVE CONSIDERED THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE LD. DR FO R THE REVENUE. I FIND THAT AT PAGE NOS. 5 & 6 OF HIS ORDER, THE CIT(A) HAS GIVEN A CATEGORICAL FINDING THAT ASSESSEE HAS NOT PRODUCED BOOKS OF ACCOUNT AND PARTIES FROM WHOM THE PURCHASES W ERE MADE COULD NOT BE PRODUCED BEFORE THE AO AND EVEN THE NOTICES ISSUED BY THE AO U/S. 133(6) TO THESE PARTIES COULD NOT BE SERVED ON THEM. HE HAS HELD THAT IT IS PRESUMED THAT ASSESSEE HAD MADE PURCHASES NOT FROM THE PARTIES MENTIO NED ITA NOS. 3114 & 3115/MUM/2018 : 3 : IN THE ASSESSEES BOOKS BUT FROM THE GREY MARKET AND T HEREBY MAKING MORE PROFIT, WHICH WAS NOT DISCLOSED TO THE DEPARTMENT. HE HAS HELD THAT THE PURCHASES OF THE ASSES SEE ARE IN DOUBT SINCE THERE IS NO GENUINENESS. SO, THE A DDITIONAL PROFIT EARNED BY THE ASSESSEE WAS ESTIMATED BY THE AO AT 12.5%. LD. CIT(A) CONFIRMED THE ADDITION MADE TO THE E XTENT OF 12.5% OF THE ALLEGED BOGUS PURCHASES. CONSIDERING THE FACTS OF THE PRESENT CASE, I FIND NO REASON TO INTERFERE WI TH THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A) IN ANY OF THESE TWO YEARS. GROUNDS RAIS ED BY ASSESSEE ARE REJECTED. 6. IN THE RESULT, BOTH THE APPEALS ARE DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 1 ST DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2019 SD/- (A.K. GARODIA) /ACCOUNTANT MEMBER /MUMBAI; /DATED : 1 ST FEBRUARY, 2019 TNMM ITA NOS. 3114 & 3115/MUM/2018 : 4 : / COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. ! / THE APPELLANT 2. ' ! / THE RESPONDENT 3. # $ ( ) / THE CIT(A), MUMBAI 4. # $ / CIT, MUMBAI 5. '()*+ , #-*+#. , / DR, ITAT, MUMBAI 6. )/01 / GUARD FILE # / BY ORDER, ' //TRUE COPY// /# (DY./ASST. REGISTRAR) #-*+#., / ITAT, MUMBAI