NEHAL CORPORATION, MUMBAI V. ITO WD 16(3)(2), MUMBAI

ITA 3610/MUM/2015

• Counselvise Citation: [2016] 121 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 3613 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 24 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 05-07-2016
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: G
• Next Hearing Date: 15-06-2017
• Assessment Year: 2001-2002
• Appeal Filed On: 11-06-2015
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: R M MADHAVI
• Section: 143(3); 133A

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH SMC, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI G.S.PANNU, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO. 3610 /MUM/2015 (ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2001-02) M/S. NEHAL CORPORATION, 31, A/B VASANT VILAS, D.D.SATHE MARG, MUMBAI 400 007 PAN:AADFN 1514B ... APPELLA NT VS. THE ITO , WARD 16(3)(2), 2 ND FLOOR, MATRU MANDIR, TARDEO ROAD, GRANT ROAD(W), MUMBAI 400 007 .... RESPONDENT APPELLANT BY : NONE RESPONDENT BY : MS. R.M.MADHAVI DATE OF HEARING : 05/07/2016 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 05/07/2016 ORDER THE CAPTIONED APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE PERTAINI NG TO ASSESSMENT YEAR 2001-02 IS DIRECTED AGAINST AN ORDE R PASSED BY CIT(A)30, MUMBAI DATED 09/03/2015, WHICH IN TURN AR ISES OUT OF AN ORDER PASSED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER UNDER SECTION 143(3) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 (IN SHORT THE ACT) DATED 29 /03/2004. 2. AT THE TIME OF HEARING, IT WAS NOTICED THAT IN SPITE OF SERVICE OF NOTICE OF HEARING BY REGISTERED POST, NONE APPEARED ON BEHALF OF THE APPELLANT ASSESSEE. ACCORDINGLY, FOLLOWING RULE 2 4 OF INCOME-TAX 2 ITA NO. 3610 /MUM/2015 (ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2001-02) (APPELLATE TRIBUNAL) RULES, 1963, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS BEING DISPOSED OF EX-PARTE QUA THE APPELLANT, AFTER HEARI NG LD. DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE ON MERIT. 3. IN BRIEF, THE RELEVANT FACTS ARE THAT THE ASSESS EE IS A PARTNERSHIP FIRM ENGAGED IN THE BUSINESS OF TRADING IN AUTOMOB ILE SPARES AND BEARINGS. IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER, ASSESSING OFFIC ER HAS NOTED THAT A SURVEY ACTION UNDER SECTION 133A OF THE ACT WAS CAR RIED OUT IN THE PREMISES OF THE ASSESSEE SIMULTANEOUSLY WITH A SEAR CH ACTION AT THE RESIDENCE OF SHRI RAJNIKANT S. JANANI AND ASSOCIATE D GROUP CASES ON 14/02/2001. THE FACTS RELEVANT FOR THE PRESENT PUR POSE ARE THAT PURCHASES TO THE TUNE OF RS.4,96,500/- MADE FROM TH REE PARTIES NAMELY MEIT ENTERPRISES, M.K.ENTERPRISES AND VIJAY SALES C ORPORATION HAVE BEEN HELD TO BE UNPROVED. THE CIT(A) HAS CONCLUDED THAT ASSESSEE HAS OBTAINED BOGUS BILLS FROM SUCH PARTIES WITH THE OB JECT OF INFLATING THE PURCHASES AND SUPPRESSION OF TRUE PROFITS. THE FIN DING OF THE CIT(A) IS AFTER TAKING INTO CONSIDERATION THE FACT THAT ON AN EARLIER OCCASION THE MATTER HAD TRAVELLED TO THE TRIBUNAL, WHICH HAD SET -ASIDE THE ISSUE FOR FRESH ADJUDICATION. THE CIT(A) ALSO NOTES THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN THE REMAND REPORT HAD ACCEPTED THE PURCHASES FROM FIVE PARTIES, AS VERIFIABLE AND TO THAT EXTENT THE CIT(A) DELETED TH E ADDITION. ONLY IN RELATION TO THE AFORESAID THREE PARTIES, THE CIT(A) AFFIRMED THE ADDITION BY NOTICING THAT ASSESSEE HAD FAILED TO DISCHARGE T HE BURDEN CAST UPON IT. 3 ITA NO. 3610 /MUM/2015 (ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2001-02) 4. BEFORE ME, THERE IS NO MATERIAL TO DISTRACT FROM THE FINDING OF CIT(A), ESPECIALLY CONSIDERING THE ABSENCE OF THE A SSESSEE TO PUT IN APPEARANCE AT THE TIME OF HEARING. AS A CONSEQUENC E, I HEREBY AFFIRM THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A) AND ACCORDINGLY, ASSESSEE F AILS IN ITS APPEAL. 5. IN THE RESULT, APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS DISMISS ED. THE ABOVE DECISION WAS PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COUR T IN THE PRESENCE OF LD. DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE AT TH E TIME OF HEARING ON 05/07/2016. SD/- (G.S. PANNU) ACCOU NTANT MEMBER MUMBAI, DATED 05/07/2016 VM , SR. PS COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. THE APPELLANT , 2. THE RESPONDENT. 3. THE CIT(A)- 4. CIT 5. DR, ITAT, MUMBAI 6. GUARD FILE. BY ORDER, //TRUE COPY// (DY./ASSTT. REGISTRAR) ITAT, MUMBAI