ACIT-24(1), MUMBAI V. ADVANCED TECHNIQUES & TECHNOLOGIES, MUMBAI

ITA 38/MUM/2019

• Counselvise Citation: [2020] 111 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 8779 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 13 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 17-01-2020
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Assessment Year: 2010-2011
• Appeal Filed On: 03-01-2019
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: R BHOOPATHI
• Section: 143(1); 147

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL SMC BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI SAKTIJIT DEY , JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI RAJESH KUMAR , ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO. 38 / MUM . /201 9 ( ASSESSMENT YEAR : 20 10 11 ) ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE 24(1), MUMBAI . APPELLANT V/S ADVANCED TECHNIQUES & TECHNOLOGIES 406, GOLDEN CHAMBERS NEW LINK ROAD, ANDHERI (W) MUMBAI 400 053 PAN AAFFA577R . RESPONDENT REVENUE BY : SHRI R. BHOOPATHI ASSESSEE BY : NONE DATE OF HEARING 09 .01.2020 DATE OF ORDER 17.01.2020 O R D E R PER SAKTIJIT DEY. J.M. THE AFORESAID APPEAL HAS BEEN FILED BY THE REVENUE CHALLENGING THE ORDER DATED 24 TH SEPTEMBER 2018 , PASSED BY THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) 36 , MUMBAI, PERTAINING TO THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 20 10 11 . 2. THE GRIEVANCE OF THE REVENUE IN THE PRESENT APPEAL IS CONFINED TO THE PARTIAL RELIEF GRANTED BY LEARNED COMMISSIONER (APPEALS) IN THE 2 ADVANCED TECHNIQUES & TECHNOLOGIES MATTER OF ADDITION MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER ON ACCOUNT OF NON GENUINE PURCHASES. 3. BRIEF FA CTS ARE, THE ASSESSEE , A PARTNERSHIP FIRM , IS ENGAGED IN THE BUSINESS AS A MANUFACTURER, RETAILER, IMPORTER OF PACKING MATERIALS, PISTON RINGS, ETC. FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR UNDER DISPUTE, THE ASSESSEE FILED ITS RETURN OF INCOME ON 26 TH SEPTEMBER 2010, DECL ARING TOTAL INCOME OF ` 11,51,026. INITIALLY, THE RETURN OF INCOME FILED BY THE ASSESSEE WAS PROCESSED UNDER SECTION 143(1) OF THE ACT. SUBSEQUENTLY, ON THE BASIS OF INFORMATION RECEIVED FROM THE SALES TAX DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT OF MAHARASHTRA, THROUGH THE OFFICE OF THE DGIT (INV.), MUMBAI, THAT THE ASSESSEE IS A BENEFICIARY OF ACCOMMODATION BILLS PROVIDED BY CERTAIN ENTITIES IDENTIFIED AS HAWALA OPERATOR S , THE ASSESSING OFFICER RE OPENED THE ASSESSMENT UNDER SECTION 147 OF THE ACT. DURING THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, THE ASSESSING OFFICER CALLED UPON THE ASSESSEE TO PROVE THE GENUINENESS OF PURCHASES WORTH ` 2,53,989, CLAIMED TO HAVE BEEN MADE FROM DHARMESH TRADING CO. DURING THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION. IN THIS CONTEXT, THE ASSESSING OFFICER CALLED UPON THE ASSESSEE TO FURNISH VARIOUS DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCES. AS OBSERVED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER, IN RESPONSE TO THE QUERY RAISED, THE ASSESSEE FURNISHED PURCHA SE BILLS, BANK STATEMENT, LEDGER ACCOUNT COPY, ETC. FURTHER, TO VERIFY THE GENUINENESS OF SUCH PURCHASES INDEPENDENTLY, THE ASSESSING OFFICER 3 ADVANCED TECHNIQUES & TECHNOLOGIES ISSUED NOTI CE UNDER SECTION 133(6), WHICH AS ALLEGED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER , REVEALED THAT THE PURCHASES ARE NOT GENUINE. CONSIDERING THESE FACTS THE ASSESSING OFFICER TREATED THE PURCHASES AS NON GENUINE AND RELYING UPON CERTAIN JUDICIAL PRECEDENTS HE DISALLOWED 25% OF SUCH PURCHASES AND ADDED BACK THE AMOUNT OF ` 63,497, TO THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE. THE ASSESSEE CHALLENGED THE AFORESAID ADDITION BEFORE THE FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY. 4. AFTER CONSIDERING THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE ASSESSEE IN THE CONTEXT OF F ACTS AND MATERIAL ON RECORD, LEARNED COMMISSIONER (APPEALS) REDUCED THE ADDITION TO 12 .5 % OF THE NON GENUINE PURC HASES. 5. WHEN THE APPEAL WAS CALLED FOR HEARING, NO ONE WAS PRESENT ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE TO REPRESENT THE CASE. THERE IS NO APPLICATION BY THE ASSESSEE SEEKING ADJOURNMENT EITHER. THEREFORE, WE PROCEED TO DISPOSE OFF THE APPEAL EX PARTE QUA THE ASSESSE E AFTER HEARING THE LEARNED DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE AND ON THE BASIS OF MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. 6. HEARD THE LEARNED DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE AND PERUSED THE MATERIAL ON RECORD. IT IS EVIDENT , THOUGH , THE ASSESSEE WAS UNABLE TO CONCLUSIVELY PROVE THE GENUINENESS OF PURCHASES OF ` 2,53,989, CLAIMED TO HAVE BEEN MADE FROM A PARTY, HOWEVER, THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS ULTIMATELY D ISALLOWED 25% OF SUCH PURCHASES. WHEREAS, 4 ADVANCED TECHNIQUES & TECHNOLOGIES LEARNED COMMISSIONER (APPEALS) AFTER HAVING NOTED ALL THE RELEVANT FACTS HAS REDUCED THE ADDITION TO 12.5% OF THE NON GENUINE PURCHASES. THU S, AS COULD BE SEEN, ULTIMATELY THE DISPUTE IS WITH REGARD TO THE QUANTUM OF DISALLOWANCE THAT HAS TO BE MADE ON ACCOUNT ON NON GENUINE PURCHASES. AFTER CONSIDERING THE NATURE OF BUSINESS AND ALL OTHER RELEVANT FACTORS, WE ARE OF THE CONSIDERED OPINION THAT DISALLOWANCE @ 12.5% OF THE NON GENUINE PURCHASES , AS HAS BEEN DONE BY THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER (APPEALS) , IS FAIR AND REASONABLE AND MEETS THE ENDS O F JUSTICE. ACCORDINGLY, WE UPHOLD THE DECISION OF LEARNED COMMISSIONER (APPEALS) ON THIS ISSUE. GROUNDS ARE DISMISSED. 7. IN THE RESULT, REVENUES APPEAL IS DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN C OURT ON 17.01.2020 SD/ - RAJESH KUMAR ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SD/ - SAKTIJIT DEY JUDICIAL MEMBER MUMBAI, DATED: 17.01.2020 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