SHAH RAMESH J (HUF), MUMBAI V. ITO 19(2)(2), MUMBAI

ITA 3434/MUM/2018

• Counselvise Citation: [2019] 115 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 4541 (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: 2009-2010
• 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. 343 4 / MUM . /2018 ( ASSESSMENT YEAR : 20 09 10 ) SHAH RAMESH (HUF) 1, HIRA BUILDING 1 ST PARSIWADA LANE MUMBAI 400 004 PAN AALHS9465E . APPELLANT V/S INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 19 ( 2 )( 2 ), MUMBAI . RESPONDENT ASSESSEE BY : NONE REVENUE BY : SHRI VIVEK ANAND OJHA DATE OF HEARING 0 6 . 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 ND FEBRUARY 2 0 1 5 , PASSED BY THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER (APPEALS) 51 , MUMBAI , FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 20 09 10 . 2 . WHEN THE APPEAL WAS CALLED FOR HEARING, NO ONE WAS PRESENT FOR THE ASSESSEE DESPITE SERVICE OF HEARING NOTICE , WHICH IS EVIDENT FROM POSTAL ACKNOWLEDGMENT KEPT ON RECORD. EVEN, THE ASSESSEE HAS ALSO NOT FILED ANY APPLICATI ON SEEKING ADJOURNMENT . IN VIEW OF THE 2 SHAH RAMESH (HUF) AFO RESAID, I PROCEED TO DISPOSE OF THE APPEAL EX PARTE QUA THE ASSESSEE AFTER H EARING THE LEARNED DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE. 3 . THE DISPUTE IN THE PRESENT APPEAL IS CONFINED TO THE ADDITION OF ` ` 8,01,967, ON ACCOUNT OF NON GENUINE PURCHASES. 4 . BRIEFLY THE FACTS ARE, THE ASSESSEE, AN INDIVIDUAL, IS ENGAGED IN THE BUSINESS OF TRADING IN METALS. FOR THE IMPUGNED ASSESSMENT YEAR, THE ASSESSEE FILED HIS RETURN OF INCOME ON 23 RD SEPTEMBER 2009, DECLARING TOTAL INCOME OF ` 6,04,599 . SUBSEQUENTLY, ON THE BASIS OF INFORMATION RECEIVED FROM THE DGIT (INV.), MUMBAI, AND THE SALES TAX DEPARTMENT, MAHARASHTRA GOVERNMENT, THAT PURCHASE OF ` 64,15,734 , CLAIMED TO HAVE BEEN MADE BY THE ASSESSEE FROM FOUR PARTIES ARE NOT GENUINE, THE ASSESSIN G OFFICER RE OPENED THE ASSESSMENT UNDER SECTION 147 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 (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 HI M, BARRING LEDGER ACCOUNT COPIES AND PAYMENT DETAILS, THE ASSESSEE COULD NOT PRODUCE DELIVERY CHALLANS, LORRY RECEIPTS, TRANSPORTATION DETAILS, ETC., TO DEMONSTRATE ACTUAL DELIVERY OF GOODS. THEREFORE, TREATING THE PURCHASES AS NON GENUINE, THE ASSESSING O FFICER REJECTED THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT UNDER SECTION 145(3) OF THE ACT. HOWEVER, CONSIDERING THE FACT THAT THE ASSESSEE RECORDED THE PURCHASES IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT AND EFFECTED THE CORRESPONDING 3 SHAH RAMESH (HUF) SALES, THE ASSESSING OFFICER PROCEEDED TO ESTIMATE PROFIT AT 12.5% OF THE NON GENUINE PURCHASES AND ADDED BACK AN AMOUNT OF ` 8,01,967 , TO THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE. THOUGH, THE ASSESSEE CHALLENGED THE AFORESAID ADDITION, HOWEVER, THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER (APPEALS) SUSTAINED THE ADDITION MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFI CER. 5 . I HAVE HEARD THE LEARNED DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE AND PERUSED MATERIALS ON RECORD. IT IS EVIDENT, BEFORE THE DEPARTMENTAL AUTHORITIES THE ASSESSEE HAS FAILED TO PROVE THE GENUINENESS OF PURCHASES BY FURNISHING CREDIBLE EVIDENCE. IN FACT, BEFORE TH E LEARNED COMMISSIONER (APPEALS), THE ASSESSEE DID NOT APPEAR AT ALL. EVEN BEFORE ME ALSO, THE ASSESSEE 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 DISMISSED. 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 SHAH RAMESH (HUF) 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