ITO - WD- 22 (1)(2), MUMBAI V. DEEPAK NAVNITLAL SHAH, MUMBAI

ITA 5358/MUM/2018

• Counselvise Citation: [2019] 115 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 4651 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 22 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 09-10-2019
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Assessment Year: 2009-2010
• Appeal Filed On: 17-09-2018
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: AKHTAR A ANSARI
• Assessee Lawyers: HARESH PURUSHOTTAMDAS SHAH
• Keywords: Bogus purchase; Additional evidence; Onus to prove; Reason to believe
• Section: 143(2); 147; 148

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME-TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL SMC BENCH MU MBAI BEFORE SHRI SHAMIM YAHYA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI PAWAN SINGH JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA NO. 5358/MUM/2018 (ASSESSMENT YEAR 2009-10 ) I TO 22(1)(2) ROOM NO. 313, PIRAMAL CHAMBERS, LALBAUG, MUMBAI-400012 VS. SHRI DEEPAK NAVNITLAL SHAH (PROP. OF M/S RAJDEEP TRADERS 2, MAHESHWAR KUNJ, SARASWATI ROAD, SANTACRUZ (W), MUMBAI- 400054. PAN: AAEPS9982R APPELLANT RESPONDE NT ITA NO. 5375/MUM/2018 (ASSESSMENT YEAR 2009-10 ) SHRI DEEPAK NAVNITLAL SHAH (PROP. OF M/S RAJDEEP TRADERS 2, MAHESHWAR KUNJ, SARASWATI ROAD, SANTACRUZ (W), MUMBAI- 400054. PAN: AAEPS9982R VS. ITO 22(1)(2) ROOM NO. 313, PIRAMAL CHAMBERS, LALBAUG, MUMBAI-400012 APPELLANT BY : SHRI AKHTAR A. ANSARI (DR) RESPONDENT BY : SHRI HARESH PURUSHOTTAMDAS SHAH (AR) DATE OF HEARING : 09.10.2019 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMEN T : 09.10.2019 ORDERUNDER SECTION 254(1)OF INCOME TAX ACT PER PAWAN SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER ; 1. THESE CROSS APPEAL ARE DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER O F LD. CIT(A)-34, MUMBAI DATED 26.06.2018 FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2009-10 . THE REVENUE IN ITS APPEAL HAS RAISED THE FOLLOWING GROU NDS OF APPEAL: (1) 'WHETHER ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN-LAW, THE LEARNED CIT(APPEAL) WAS RIGHT IN DELETING ADDIT ION MADE IN RESPECT OF PURCHASE FROM M/S C.R. ENTERPRISES AS BOGUS PURCHAS ES, MERELY ON THE GROUND THAT THE SAID PARTY HAS FILED CONFIRMATION O F SALES, HOWEVER THE ITA NO. 5358 & 5375 MUM 2018-SHRI DEEPAK NAVNITLAL SHAH 2 ASSESSEE CLEARLY FAILED IN ESTABLISHING THE GENUINE NESS OF PURCHASES BEFORE AO DURING ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS'. (2) ' WHETHER ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN-LAW, THE LEARNED CIT(APPEAL) WAS RIGHT IN CONSIDERING TH E CONFIRMATION OF SALES FROM M/S C.R. ENTERPRISES, HOWEVER THE AO HAS NOT S TATED ABOUT SUCH CONFIRMATION IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER AND THUS THE L D. CIT(A) HAS VIOLATED THE PROVISIONS OF RULE 46A OF THE INCOME TAX ACT RU LE'. (3) ' ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE IN LAW, THE LD .CIT(A) FAILED TO APPRECIATE THE FACT THAT ONUS IS ON THE ASSESSEE TO EXPLAIN AND SUBSTANTIATE THE GENUINENESS AND TRUE NATURE PU RCHASE TRANSACTION'. (4) THE APPELLANT PRAYS THAT APPEAL IS BEING FILED BECAUSE IT COVERED UNDER EXCEPTION PROVIDED IN THE PARA 10(E) OF THE AMENDED INSTRUCTION NO. 3 OF 2018 DATED 20.08.2018. (5) THE APPELLANT PRAYS THAT THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A ) ON THE ABOVE GROUND TO BE REVERSED AND THAT OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER BE RESTORED. 2. THE ASSESSEE IN ITS CROSS APPEAL HAS RAISED THE FOL LOWING GROUNDS OF APPEAL: (I) ON REOPENING & VALIDITY OF REASSESSMENT- (1) ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES AND IN LAW, T HE LEARNED CIT(A)- 34, MUMBAI [REFERRED AS 'CIT(A)'] ERRED IN CONFIRMI NG REOPENING UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 147 OF THE ACT. (2) ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES AND IN LAW, THE LEAR NED CIT(A) ERRED IN CONFIRMING REASSESSMENT WITHOUT CONSIDERING OR DISR EGARDING THAT THE MANDATORY NOTICE UNDER SECTION 143(2) OF THE ACT FO R THE REASSESSMENT WAS NOT SERVED. (3) ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES AND IN LAW, THE LEAR NED CIT(A) ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE ALLEGED ADDITION WITHOUT APPRECIATIN G THAT NEITHER RELEVANT MATERIAL RECEIVED FROM THE SALES TAX DEPT WAS PROVIDED NOR ANY OPPORTUNITY WAS GRANTED. (4) ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES AND IN LAW, IT IS PR AYED THAT THE IMPUGNED REASSESSMENT ORDER MAY BE QUASHED AS THERE WAS REASON TO BELIEVE WITHIN THE MEANING OF SECTION 147 OF THE AC T. (II) ON ADDITION OF RS. 3,93,051/- BEING DISALLOWAN CE @ 12.5% OUT OF ALLEGED PURCHASES OF RS. 31,44,408/- F ROM HAWALA DEALERS. (1) ON THE FACTS & CIRCUMSTANCES AND IN LAW THE LEARNED CITCA) ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE DISALLOWANCE OF RS. 3,93,051/-@12.5% , ON AD-HOC BASIS, OUT OF PURCHASES FROM THE ALLEGED HAWALA DEALERS [A S PER THE SALES TAX AUTHORITY] MERELY ON THE BASIS OF SUSPICION, SURMIS ES OR CONJECTURE. (2) ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES THE LEARNED CIT(A) F AILED TO APPRECIATE THAT THE BASIS OF ALLEGED ADDITION WAS PURELY UPON THE UNDISCLOSED INFORMATION FROM THE OFFICE OF DGIT (INV), MUMBAI. ITA NO. 5358 & 5375 MUM 2018-SHRI DEEPAK NAVNITLAL SHAH 3 (3) ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES YOUR APPELLANT PRAYS THAT THE ALLEGED ADDITION OF RS. 3,93,051/- MAY BE DELETED & OBLIGE. 3. BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT THE ASSESSEE IS EN GAGED AS A DEALER AND BROKER IN MILD STEEL, FILED ITS RETURN OF INCOME FO R ASSESSMENT YEAR 2009-10 ON 12.08.2009 DECLARING TOTAL INCOME OF RS. 2,83,158/-. THE ASSESSMENT WAS RE-OPENED UNDER SECTION 147 ON THE B ASIS OF INFORMATION RECEIVED FROM SALE TAX DEPARTMENT, GOVE RNMENT OF MAHARASHTRA THAT CERTAIN HAWALA OPERATORS ARE INDUL GING IN PROVIDING ACCOMMODATION BILLS WITHOUT ACTUAL DELIVERY OF GOOD S. THE SALE TAX DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT OF MAHARASHTRA REFERRED THE LIST OF SUCH HAWALA DEALERS AND THE BENEFICIARY TO THE DGIT (INV ESTIGATION), MUMBAI. THE NAME OF ASSESSEE APPEARED IN THE LIST O F BENEFICIARY. THE ASSESSEE ALLEGEDLY MADE THE PURCHASES OF RS. 31 ,44,408/- FROM C.R. ENTERPRISES, ARIHANT TRADERS AND HAZI RAJBALI CHITTAWALA/STANDARD METAL IMPEX, WHOSE NAMES WERE I NCLUDED IN THE LIST SUCH HAWALA DEALERS. ON THE BASIS OF INFORMATI ON, THE ASSESSING OFFICER MADE A BELIEF THAT THE INCOME OF THE ASSESS EE ESCAPED ASSESSMENT, THEREFORE, RE-OPENED THE ASSESSMENT UND ER SECTION 147. NOTICE UNDER SECTION 148 DATED 14.03.2014 WAS ISSUE D TO THE ASSESSEE. THE ASSESSEE IN RESPONSE TO THE NOTICE UN DER SECTION 148 FILED ITS REPLY DATED 15.04.2014 AND STATED THAT OR IGINAL RETURN FILED BY ASSESSEE MAY BE TREATED AS RETURN IN RESPONSE TO NO TICE UNDER SECTION ITA NO. 5358 & 5375 MUM 2018-SHRI DEEPAK NAVNITLAL SHAH 4 148. THE ASSESSING OFFICER AFTER SERVING NOTICE UN DER SECTION 143(2) PROCEEDED FOR RE-ASSESSMENT. DURING THE ASSESSMENT, THE ASSESSING OFFICER NOTED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS SHOWN PURCHASES OF RS. 31,44,408/- FROM THE FOLLOWING PARTY, WHICH WAS DEC LARED AS HAWALA DEALERS BY THE SALE TAX DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT OF M AHARASHTRA. NAME OF THE PARTY BILL AMOUNT (RS.) 1 C.R. ENTERPRISES 7,64,712/- 2 ARIHANT TRADERS 15,02,186/- 3 HAZI RAJBALI CHITTAWALA/STANDARD METAL IMPEX 8,77,510/- TOTAL 31,44,408/- 4. THE ASSESSING OFFICER ISSUED NOTICE UNDER SECTION 1 33(6) TO ALL THREE TRADERS FROM WHOM THE ASSESSEE HAS SHOWN PURCHASES. THE ASSESSING OFFICER NOTED THAT THE NOTICES SENT TO THE TRADERS WERE RETURNED BACK AS NOT CLAIMED. THE ASSESSEE WAS ASKED TO PRODUCE THE PARTIES FOR CONFIRMATION AND TO PROVE THE GENUINENESS OF PURCHA SE. THE ASSESSING OFFICER NOTED THAT NO REPLY WAS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE TO SHOW-CAUSE NOTICE DATED 09.01.2015. THE ASSESSING O FFICER ON THE BASIS OF REPORT OF DGIT(INVESTIGATION) DRAWN INFERE NCE THAT THE ASSESSEE MAY HAVE PURCHASED THE GOODS FROM OTHER SU PPLIER WITHOUT BILL. IF SUCH PERSONS ARE INDULGING IN PRACTICE OF PURCHASING OF GOODS FROM GREY MARKET AND OBTAINING BOGUS BILLS FROM OTH ER PERSONS, WOULD DO SO FOR GETTING SOME BENEFIT, THE MAGNITUDE OF THESE BENEFITS MAY DIFFER FROM FACE TO FACE. THE ASSESSEE HAD MADE PURCHASES FROM ITA NO. 5358 & 5375 MUM 2018-SHRI DEEPAK NAVNITLAL SHAH 5 GREY MARKET AND TRIED TO GIVE THE PURCHASE OF COLOU R OF GENUINENESS BY OBTAINING FICTITIOUS INVOICES FROM OTHER CONCERN (BOGUS DEALERS). THE ASSESSING OFFICER ON HIS ABOVE OBSERVATION DISA LLOWED 12.5% OF THE AGGREGATE OF ALLEGED BOGUS PURCHASES OF RS. 31, 44,408/-, WHICH WAS WORKED OUT TO RS. 3,93,051/-. 5. ON APPEAL BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A), THE LD. CIT(A) UPH ELD THE VALIDITY OF RE-OPENING, HOWEVER, THE DISALLOWANCE QUA THE PURCH ASES FROM C.R. ENTERPRISES WAS DELETED AND DISALLOWANCES OF ARIHAN T TRADER AND HAZI RAJBALI CHITTAWALA/STANDARD METAL IMPEX WAS UP HELD. THUS, AGGRIEVED BY THE ORDER OF LD. CIT(A), THE REVENUE A S WELL AS THE ASSESSEE, BOTH FILED THEIR RESPECTIVE APPEAL BEFORE THIS TRIBUNAL BY RAISING THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL AS REFERRED ABOVE. 6. WE HAVE HEARD THE SUBMISSION OF LD. AUTHORIZED REPR ESENTATIVE (AR) OF THE ASSESSEE AND LD. DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE (DR) FOR THE REVENUE AND PERUSED THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECOR D. ITA NO. 5375/MUM/2018 BY ASSESSEE 7. GROUND NO. I (1 TO 3) RELATES TO CHALLENGING THE VA LIDITY OF RE-OPENING AND NOTICE UNDER SECTION 143(2). THE LD. AR OF THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT ARGUED ANYTHING AGAINST THESE GROUNDS OF APPEAL, TH EREFORE, ALL THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL ARE TREATED AS NOT PRESSED AND DI SMISSED ACCORDINGLY. ITA NO. 5358 & 5375 MUM 2018-SHRI DEEPAK NAVNITLAL SHAH 6 8. GROUND NO. II (1 TO 3) RELATES TO DISALLOWANCE OF 1 2.5% OF PURCHASES FROM ARIHANT TRADER AND HAZI RAJBALI CHITTAWALA/STA NDARD METAL IMPEX. THE LD. AR OF THE ASSESSEE SUBMITS THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS MADE GENUINE PURCHASES. THE ASSESSING OFFICER DISALLOWED THE 12.5% OF THE PURCHASES DESPITE THE FACT THAT THE ASSESSEE HA S PROVED ALL PURCHASES. THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS NOT REJECTED T HE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT. THE SALES OF ASSESSEE WAS NOT DISPUTED BY ASSESSING OFFICER. NO SALE IS POSSIBLE WITHOUT PURCHASES. THE LD. AR S UBMITS THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS ALREADY SHOWN GROSS PROFIT RATIO (GP) OF 3.85%, WHICH IS HIGHER THAN THE PRECEDING YEARS. THE LD. AR OF T HE ASSESSEE SUBMITS THAT IN ORDER TO BUY THE PEACE, THE ASSESSEE IS REA DY TO ACCEPT THE REASONABLE DISALLOWANCE AS PER THE LATEST DECISION OF HONBLE BOMBAY HIGH COURT IN PCIT VS. MOHAMMED HAJI ADAM & CO. IN ITA NO. 1004 OF 2016, WHEREIN IT WAS HELD THAT ADDI TION IN RESPECT OF BOGUS PURCHASES IS TO BE LIMITED TO THE EXTENT OF B RINING THE GP RATE ON SUCH PURCHASES AT SAME RATE AS ON OTHER GENUINE PURCHASES. 9. ON THE OTHER HAND, THE LD. DR FOR THE REVENUE SUPPO RTED THE ORDER OF ASSESSING OFFICER. THE LD. DR FURTHER SUBMITS THAT INVESTIGATION WING OF INCOME-TAX DEPARTMENT HAS MADE FULL-FLEDGED INVESTIGATION IN RESPECT OF HAWALA TRADERS. THE HAWALA TRADERS WE RE/ARE ENGAGED IN PROVIDING BOGUS BILL WITHOUT ACTUAL DELIVERY OF GOO DS. THE ASSESSEE HAS SHOWN BOGUS PURCHASES ONLY TO INFLATE THE PROFI T. THE LD. DR FOR ITA NO. 5358 & 5375 MUM 2018-SHRI DEEPAK NAVNITLAL SHAH 7 THE REVENUE SUBMITS THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS BROUGHT SUFFICIENT MATERIAL ON RECORD TO PROVE THAT THE PURCHASES SHOW N BY ASSESSEE WERE BOGUS. THE ASSESSEE IS NOT ENTITLED FOR ANY RE LIEF. 10. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE SUBMISSION OF LD. DR FOR THE REVENUE AND LD. AR OF THE ASSESSEE. THE ASSESSING OFFICER MADE THE DISALLOWANCE OF 12.5% OF THE ALLEGED BOGUS PURCHASES. THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS NOT DISPUTED THE SALES OF THE ASSESSEE. THE ASSESSING O FFICER SOLELY RELIED UPON THE REPORT OF INVESTIGATION WING OF SALE TAX D EPARTMENT. BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A), THE ASSESSEE URGED THAT THE PURCHASES SHOWN BY ASSESSEE ARE GENUINE. THE PAYMENTS OF PURCHASES WERE MADE THROUGH ACCOUNT PAYEE CHEQUES. THE GOODS WERE RECEI VED BY ASSESSEE AND QUANTITATIVE DETAILS AND CORRESPONDING SALES WE RE SHOWN. THE LD. CIT(A) AFTER CONSIDERING THE MATERIAL PLACED BEFORE HIM AND THE RATIO OF THE DECISIONS INCLUDING THE DECISION OF SIMITH P . SETH [356 ITR 451] CONCLUDED THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS NOT Q UESTIONED THE SALE OF THE ASSESSEE, THERE CANNOT BE SALE WITHOUT PURCH ASES. HOWEVER, THE LD. CIT(A) NOTED THAT THE ASSESSEE IS INDULGING IN TRADING WITH BOGUS ACCOMMODATION ENTRY PROVIDER. THE ADVANTAGE FROM SU CH BOGUS BILLS ARE IN THE FORM OF SAVING VAT, TRANSPORTATION CHARG ES AND OTHER TAXES. ON HIS OBSERVATION, THE LD. CIT(A) CONFIRMED THE DISALLOWANCE OF BOGUS PURCHASES @ 12.5% QUA ARIHANT TRADER AND H AZI RAJBALI CHITTAWALA/STANDARD METAL IMPEX. BEFORE US, THE LD. AR OF THE ITA NO. 5358 & 5375 MUM 2018-SHRI DEEPAK NAVNITLAL SHAH 8 ASSESSEE VEHEMENTLY ARGUED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS AL READY SHOWN GP OF 3.85% AND FURTHER DISALLOWANCE WILL INCREASE THE GP WHICH IS UNREASONABLE IN THE TRADE OF ASSESSEE. CONSIDERING THE FACT THAT NEITHER THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT OF ASSESSEE WAS REJECT ED NOR THE SALE OF ASSESSEE WAS DISPUTED BY THE LOWER AUTHORITY, THERE FORE, CONSIDERING THE DECISION OF HONBLE BOMBAY HIGH COURT OF IN PCI T VS. MOHAMMED HAJI ADAM & CO.(SUPRA), WE DIRECT THE ASSE SSING OFFICER TO RESTRICT THE DISALLOWANCE OF BOGUS PURCH ASE BY BRINGING THE GP RATE ON THE SUCH PURCHASES AT THE SAME RATE AS T HAT OF OTHER GENUINE PURCHASES. NEEDLESS TO ORDER THAT BEFORE RE STRICTING THE ADDITION, THE ASSESSING OFFICER SHALL GRANT OPPORTU NITY TO THE ASSESSEE. 11. IN THE RESULT, APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS PARTLY ALL OWED. ITA NO. 5358/MUM/2018 BY REVENUE 12. GROUND NO. 1 TO 3 RELATES TO DELETING THE ADDITION OF PURCHASES FROM C.R. ENTERPRISES. 13. THE LD. DR FOR THE REVENUE SUPPORTED THE ORDER OF A SSESSING OFFICER. THE LD. DR SUBMITS THAT THE LD. CIT(A) DELETED THE ADDITION BY ACCEPTING THE SUBMISSION MADE BY ASSESSEE DURING TH E APPELLATE STAGE WITHOUT GIVING OPPORTUNITY TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER . THE LD. CIT(A) NOT FOLLOWED THE PROCEDURE OF RULE 46A OF INCOME-TA X RULES. ITA NO. 5358 & 5375 MUM 2018-SHRI DEEPAK NAVNITLAL SHAH 9 14. ON THE OTHER HAND, THE LD. AR OF THE ASSESSEE SUPPO RTED THE ORDER OF LD. CIT(A). THE LD. AR OF THE ASSESSEE FURTHER SUBM ITS THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT FILED ANY ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE OR A DDITIONAL FACT BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A). THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS NO T CONSIDERED THE REPLY FILED BY M/S C.R. ENTERPRISES IN RESPONSE TO THE NOTICE UNDER SECTION 133(6). IN RESPONSE TO THE NOTICE UNDER SEC TION 133(6), SHRI RAJU DOSHI, PROPRIETOR OF M/S C.R. ENTERPRISES FILE D CONFIRMATION IN THE FORM OF AFFIDAVIT ON 02.02.2015, THE ASSESSMENT WAS COMPLETED ON 16.02.2015. THE ASSESSEE FULLY DISCHARGED THE ON US TO PROVE THE GENUINENESS OF PURCHASES SHOWN FROM C.R. ENTERPRISE S. 15. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE SUBMISSION OF BOTH THE PARTI ES AND PERUSED THE ORDER OF LOWER AUTHORITIES. WE HAVE NOTED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT FILED ANY ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE BEFORE THE FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY (FAA). THE ASSESSEE EXPLAINED THAT IN RESPONSE TO N OTICE UNDER SECTION 133(6), THE PROPRIETOR OF M/S C.R. ENTERPRI SES FILED HIS AFFIDAVIT CONFIRMING THE SALES OF RS. 7,64,712/- ON 02.02.2015, MUCH BEFORE THE PASSING THE ASSESSMENT ORDER. WE HAVE FU RTHER NOTED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS SHOWN THE SALE OF MATERIAL/GOODS P URCHASED FROM C.R. ENTERPRISES TO M/S SHIVRAJ DRUMS & CONTAINERS AND SPA INTERIOR. THE ASSESSEE ALSO SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSE SSING OFFICER HAS NOT TAKEN COGNIZANCE OF CONFIRMATION FILED ON BEHAL F OF C.R. ENTERPRISES. WE HAVE NOTED THAT NEITHER THE ASSESSE E HAS FILED FRESH ITA NO. 5358 & 5375 MUM 2018-SHRI DEEPAK NAVNITLAL SHAH 10 EVIDENCE NOR ANY EVIDENCE WHICH WAS NOT FILED DURIN G THE ASSESSMENT WAS RELIED DURING THE FIRST APPELLATE STAGE. FURTH ER, THE SALE OF ASSESSEE QUA THE PURCHASES SHOWN FROM C.R. ENTERPRI SES WAS DISPUTED BY ASSESSING OFFICER. IN OUR VIEW, THE ASS ESSEE HAS DISCHARGED HIS PRIMARY ONUS TO PROVE THE GENUINENES S OF PURCHASES FROM C.R. ENTERPRISES. THE ASSESSING OFFICER MADE A DDITION ON ADHOC BASIS WITHOUT BRINGING ANY ADVERSE MATERIAL A GAINST THE ASSESSEE. THEREFORE, WE DO NOT FIND ANY INFIRMITY I N THE ORDER PASSED BY LD. CIT(A), WHICH WE AFFIRM. 16. IN THE RESULT, GROUND NOS. 1 TO 3 ARE DISMISSED. 17. GROUND NOS. 4 TO 6 ARE GENERAL AND NEEDS NO SPECIFI C ADJUDICATION. 18. IN THE RESULT, APPEAL OF THE REVENUE IS DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 09/10/2019. SD/- SD/- SHAMIM YAHYA PAWAN SINGH ACCOUNTANT MEMBER J UDICIAL MEMBER MUMBAI, DATE: 09.10.2019 SK COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. ASSESSEE 2. RESPONDENT 3. THE CONCERNED CIT(A) 4. THE CONCERNED CIT 5. DR SMC BENCH, ITAT, MUMBAI 6. GUARD FILE BY ORDER, DY./ASST. REGISTRAR ITAT, MUMBAI