AJAY P VADHAR, Mumbai V. ITO (22)(1)(1), Mumbai

ITA 617/MUM/2019

• Counselvise Citation: [2020] 111 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 3769 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 27 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 02-03-2020
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Assessment Year: 2009-2010
• Appeal Filed On: 05-02-2019
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: R K GUBGOTRA J
• Assessee Lawyers: PARAS SARLA
• Keywords: Bogus purchase
• Section: 143(3); 133(6)

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL SMC, BENCH MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI R.C.SHARMA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO. 617/MUM/2019 ( ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2009-10) AJAY P. VADHAR, 202/5524, AMAR JYOT, R.N.N. ROAD, 90 FEET ROAD, GHATKOPAR (EAST), MUMBAI-400075. VS. I.T.O.-22(1)(1) CIT(APPEALS) 25, 4 TH FLOOR, TOWER NO. 6, RLY STATION COMMERCIAL COMPLEX, VASHI- 700703. PAN/GIR NO. AABPV 83334 M (APPELLANT ) .. (RESPONDENT ) ASSESSEE BY PARAS SARLA. REVENUE BY SHRI R.K. GUBGOTRA (JCIT-DR) DATE OF HEARING 05/02/2020 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT 02/03/2020 / O R D E R PER: R.C. SHARMA, A.M. THIS APPEAL BY THE ASSESSEE IS DIRECTED AGAINST TH E EX PARTE ORDER DATED 02/11/2018 OF LD. CIT(A)-25, MUMBAI FOR THE A .Y. 2009-10 IN THE MATTER OF ORDER PASSED U/S 143(3) R.W.S. 147 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 (IN SHORT, THE ACT). 2. I HAVE GONE THROUGH THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIE S BELOW AND FOUND THAT THE ASSESSEE IS ENGAGED IN THE BUSINESS OF SUN GLASSES. THE A.O. GOT INFORMATION THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS TAKEN BO GUS PURCHASE BILLS. AFTER MAKING ENQUIRY BY ISSUING NOTICE U/S 133(6) O F THE ACT TO FIND OUT THE GENUINENESS OF THE PURCHASES, THE A.O. FOUND TH AT ALL THE NOTICES WERE RETURNED UNSERVED WITH REMARK LEFT. ACCORDIN GLY, THE A.O. ADDED ITA NO. 617/MUM/2019 AJAY V VADHAR VS ITO 2 100% OF THE ALLEGED BOGUS PURCHASES IN ASSESSEES I NCOME. BY THE IMPUGNED ORDER, THE LD. CIT(A) HAS CONFIRMED THE AC TION OF THE A.O., AGAINST WHICH THE ASSESSEE IS IN FURTHER APPEAL BEF ORE THE ITAT. 3. IT WAS ARGUED BY THE LD AR OF THE ASSESSEE THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD ALREADY SHOWN G.P. OF 8.5% WHICH IS VERY REASONABLE TO THE NATURE OF TRADE THE ASSESSEE WAS CARRYING I.E. TRADING IN SUN GLASSES. ACCORDINGLY, IT WAS PRAYED THAT THE ADDITION OF 100% WAS NOT JUS TIFIED. 4. ON THE OTHER HAND, THE LD DR HAS RELIED ON THE O RDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW. 5. I FOUND THAT AFTER MAKING ENQUIRY U/S 133(6) OF THE ACT, THE A.O. FOUND THAT THE GOODS WERE PURCHASED FROM HAWALA DEA LERS IN SO FAR AS THE NOTICES SERVED BY THE A.O. WERE RETURNED UNSERV ED WITH THE REMARKS LEFT. THE ASSESSEE FILED APPEAL BEFORE TH E LD. CIT(A). THE LD. CIT(A) GIVEN 3-4 OPPORTUNITIES TO THE ASSESSEE TO A PPEAR AND SUBSTANTIATE ITS CLAIM OF GENUINENESS OF PURCHASES. HOWEVER, AS PER THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A), NO BODY APPEARED AND THERE FORE, THE LD. CIT(A) PASSED EX PARTE ORDER AND CONFIRMED THE ADDITIONS. 6. IN THIS CASE, THE ASSESSEE IS ENGAGED IN TRADING OF SUN GLASSES. THE A.O. HAS MADE ADDITION ON THE BASIS OF INFORMAT ION FROM THE SALES TAX DEPARTMENT, HOWEVER, THE CORRESPONDING SALES MA DE BY THE ASSESSEE WAS NOT DISPUTED BY THE A.O. NOR THE BOOKS OF THE ACCOUNT OF ITA NO. 617/MUM/2019 AJAY V VADHAR VS ITO 3 THE ASSESSEE WAS REJECTED, THEREFORE, KEEPING IN VI EW THE VARIOUS JUDICIAL PRONOUNCEMENTS AS CITED BY THE LD AR, I DE EM IT FIT TO UPHOLD ADDITION ONLY TO THE EXTENT OF 10% OF THE ALLEGED B OGUS PURCHASES. I DIRECT ACCORDINGLY. 7. IN THE RESULT, APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED IN PART. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 02 ND MARCH, 2020. SD/- (R.C.SHARMA) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER MUMBAI; DATED 02/03/2020 *RANJAN COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : BY ORDER, (ASSTT. REGISTRAR) ITAT, MUMBAI 1. THE APPELLANT 2. THE RESPONDENT. 3. THE CIT(A), MUMBAI. 4. CIT 5. DR, ITAT, MUMBAI 6. GUARD FILE. //TRUE COPY//