PRABHURAM V. PRAJAPATI, MUMBAI V. ITO - 19(2)(5), MUMBAI

ITA 3433/MUM/2018

• Counselvise Citation: [2019] 115 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 4538 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 9 month(s) 29 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 20-03-2019
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Assessment Year: 2010-2011
• Appeal Filed On: 21-05-2018
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Section: 147

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL SMC BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI SAKTIJIT DEY , JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA NO. 3433 / MUM . /2018 ( ASSESSMENT YEAR : 20 10 11 ) PRABHURAM V. PRAJAPATI 23/25, L.K. BUILDING 5 TH KUMBHARWADA, MUMBAI PAN AIHPP9884E . APPELLANT V/S INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 19 ( 2 )( 5 ), MUMBAI . RESPONDENT ASSESSEE BY : NONE REVENUE BY : SHRI VIVEK ANAND OJHA DATE OF HEARING 05 . 03 .201 9 DATE OF ORDER 20.03.2019 O R D E R A FORESAID APPEAL HA S BEEN FILED BY THE ASSESSEE CHALLENGING THE ORDER DATED 2 1 ST MARCH 2 0 1 8 , PASSED BY THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER (APPEALS) 3 0 , MUMBAI , FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 20 10 11 . 2 . WHEN THE APPEAL WAS CALLED FOR HEARING, NO ONE WAS PRESENT FOR THE ASSESSEE DESPITE SERVICE OF HEARING NOTICE , WHICH IS EVIDENT FROM THE POSTAL ACKNOWLEDGMENT KEPT ON RECORD. EVEN, THE ASSESSEE HAS ALSO NOT FILED ANY APPLICATION SEEKING ADJOURNMENT. IN VIEW OF THE 2 PRABHURAM V. PRAJAPATI AF ORESAID, I PROCEED TO DISPOSE O F THE APPEAL EX PARTE QUA THE ASSESSEE AFTER HEARING THE LEARNED DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE. 3 . THE DISPUTE IN THE PRESENT APPEAL IS CONFINED TO THE ADDITION OF ` 9,50,482, ON ACCOUNT OF NON GENUINE PURCHASES. 4 . BRIEFLY THE FACTS ARE, THE ASSESSEE, AN INDIVIDUAL, IS ENGAGED IN THE BUSINESS OF TRADING IN FERROUS AND NON FERROUS METALS. FOR THE IMPUGNED ASSESSMENT YEAR, THE ASSESSEE FILED HIS RETURN OF INCOME ON 18.09.2010 DECLARING TOTAL INCOME OF ` 2,52,190 . SUBSEQUENTLY, ON THE BASIS OF INFORMATION RECEIVED FROM THE DGIT (INV.), MU MBAI, AND THE SALES TAX DEPARTMENT, MAHARASHTRA GOVERNMENT, THAT PURCHASE OF ` 76,03,863 , CLAIMED TO HAVE BEEN MADE BY THE ASSESSEE FROM NINE PARTIES ARE NOT GENUINE, THE ASSESSING OFFICER RE OPENED THE ASSESSMENT UNDER SECTION 147 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1 961 (FOR SHORT 'THE ACT' ). IN THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, WHEN THE ASSESSING OFFICER CALLED UPON THE ASSESSEE TO PROVE THE GENUINENESS OF THE PURCHASES, AS ALLEGED BY HIM, BARRING LEDGER ACCOUNT COPIES AND PAYMENT DETAILS, THE ASSESSEE COULD NOT PRODUCE DELIVERY CHALLAN S, LORRY RECEIPTS, TRANSPORTATION DETAILS, ETC., TO DEMONSTRATE ACTUAL DELIVERY OF GOODS. THEREFORE, TREATING THE PURCHASES AS NON GENUINE, THE ASSESSING OFFICER REJECTED THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT UNDER SECTION 145(3) OF THE ACT. HOWEVER, CONSIDERING THE FACT T HAT THE ASSESSEE RECORDED THE PURCHASES IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT AND EFFECTED THE 3 PRABHURAM V. PRAJAPATI CORRESPONDING SALES, THE ASSESSING OFFICER PROCEEDED TO ESTIMATE PROFIT AT 12.5% OF THE NON GENUINE PURCHASES AND ADDED BACK AN AMOUNT OF ` 9,50,482 TO THE INCOME OF THE ASSES SEE. THOUGH, THE ASSESSEE CHALLENGED THE AFORESAID ADDITION, HOWEVER, THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER (APPEALS) SUSTAINED THE ADDITION MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. 5 . I HAVE HEARD THE LEARNED DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE AND PERUSED MATERIALS ON RECORD. IT IS EVID ENT, BEFORE THE DEPARTMENTAL AUTHORITIES THE ASSESSEE HAS FAILED TO PROVE THE GENUINENESS OF PURCHASES BY FURNISHING CREDIBLE EVIDENCE. IN FACT, BEFORE THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER (APPEALS), THE ASSESSEE DID NOT APPEAR AT ALL. EVEN BEFORE ME ALSO, THE ASSESSE E HAS NEITHER APPEARED NOR PRODUCED ANY EVIDENCE TO CONTROVERT THE FINDING OF THE DEPARTMENTAL AUTHORITIES. IN THE AFORESAID FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES, I DO NOT FIND ANY REASON TO INTERFERE WITH THE DECISION OF THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER (APPEALS). GROUND IS D ISMISSED. 6 . IN THE RESULT, ASSESSEES APPEAL IS DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 20.03.2019 SD/ SAKTIJIT DEY JUDICIAL MEMBER MUMBAI, DATED: 20.03.2019 4 PRABHURAM V. PRAJAPATI 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