M/S. PREMIER ENGINEERS , MUMBAI V. ITO, 19(2)(5), MUMBAI

ITA 5537/MUM/2019

• Counselvise Citation: [2021] 108 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 2645 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 7 month(s) 12 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 05-04-2021
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Assessment Year: 2009-2010
• Appeal Filed On: 23-08-2019
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: SMITA VERMALD
• Section: 133(6); 147; 148; 144

Judgement Text

1 - IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL SMC BENCH, MUMBAI , , BEFORE HONBLE SHRI SAKTIJIT DEY, JM AND HONBLE SHRI MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL, AM (HEARING THROUGH VIDEO CONFERENCING MODE) ./ I.T.A. NO.5537/MUM/2019 ( / ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2009-10) M/S. PREMIER ENGINEERS 20-D, ZAVERI BUILDING 12 TH KHETWADI LANE MUMBAI 400 004. / VS. IT O - 19 (2) (5) 210, MATRU MANDIR MUMBAI 400 007. $% # ./ # ./PAN/GIR NO. AAIFP-1049-G ( ' %' /APPELLANT ) : ( ()%' / RESPONDENT ) ASSESSEE BY : NONE REVENUE BY : MS. SMITA VERMA LD. SR. DR / DATE OF HEARING : 22/03/2021 / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 05/04/2021 / O R D E R PER MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) 1. AT THE TIME OF HEARING OF APPEAL, THOUGH NONE A PPEARED FOR ASSESSEE, BUT THE MATERIAL ON RECORD WAS SUFFICIENT FOR DISPOSAL OF APPEAL. THE LD. SR. DR PLEADED FOR DISMISSAL OF APP EAL BY SUBMITTING THAT THE ASSESSEE FAILED TO APPEAR BEFORE ANY OF LO WER AUTHORITIES. 2. THE MATERIAL FACTS ARE THAT THE ASSESSEE BEING R ESIDENT FIRM STATED TO BE ENGAGED IN TRADING OF METALS WAS ASSESSED FOR THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION U/S 144 R.W.S. 147 ON 13/03/2015 IN V IEW OF THE FACT THAT 2 PURSUANT TO RECEIPT OF CERTAIN INFORMATION FROM SAL ES TAX AUTHORITIES, IT TRANSPIRED THAT THE ASSESSEE OBTAINED BOGUS PURCHAS E BILLS FOR RS.6.18 LACS FROM 6 PARTIES AS DETAILED IN THE ASSESSMENT O RDER. ACCORDINGLY, THE CASE WAS REOPENED AS PER DUE PROCESS OF LAW VIDE IS SUANCE OF NOTICE U/S 148 ON 30/03/2014. THE ASSESSEE DID NOT FILE AN Y RETURN IN RESPONSE TO THE SAME. THE NOTICES ISSUED U/S 133(6) TO THESE SUPPLIERS DID NOT ELICIT ANY SATISFACTORY RESPONSE WHICH LED LD. AO T O DISALLOW THESE PURCHASES. 3. THOUGH THE ASSESSEE FILED WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS BE FORE LD. CIT(A), HOWEVER, IT AGAIN FAILED TO SUBSTANTIATE THE PURCHA SE TRANSACTIONS. CONSEQUENTLY, THE ACTION OF LD. AO WAS UPHELD. AGGR IEVED, THE ASSESSEE IS UNDER FURTHER APPEAL BEFORE US. 4. UPON PERUSAL OF ORDERS OF LOWER AUTHORITIES, WE FIND THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS MISERABLY FAILED TO PROVE THE PURCHASE TRANSACTIONS. BOTH THE AUTHORITIES HAVE PASSED A REASONED AND JUDICIOU S ORDER. EVEN NO RETURN OF INCOME HAS BEEN FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IN RESPONSE TO NOTICE U/S 148. THEREFORE, FINDING NO REASON TO INTERFERE IN THE IMPUGNED ORDER, WE DISMISS THE APPEAL. 5. THE APPEAL STANDS DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED ON 05TH APRIL, 2021. SD/- SD/- (SAKTIJIT DEY) (MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL) / JUDICIAL MEMBER / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER MUMBAI; DATED : 05/04/2021 SR.PS, JAISY VARGHESE 3 ! / COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. ' %'/ THE APPELLANT 2. ()%'/ THE RESPONDENT 3. !! (' ) / THE CIT(A) 4. !! / CIT CONCERNED 5. YZ ([, !' [, / DR, ITAT, M UMBAI 6. Z]_ / GUARD FILE / BY ORDER, / (DY./ASSTT.REGISTRAR) , / ITAT, MUMBAI.