SURESH MULCHAND SHAH HUF, MUMBAI V. ITO - WD- 19(3)(4), MUMBAI

ITA 6208/MUM/2018

• Counselvise Citation: [2022] 105 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 4745 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 year(s) 5 month(s) 10 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 10-04-2022
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: G
• Assessment Year: 2011-2012
• Appeal Filed On: 30-10-2018
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Bogus purchase

Judgement Text

THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “G” Bench, Mumbai Shri Shamim Yahya (AM) & Shri Amarjit Singh (JM) I.T.A. No. 6208/Mum/2018 (A.Y. 2011-12) M/s. Suresh Mulchand Shah HUF Shop No. A01B, Mahavir Darshan, Saidham Complex, 26 Khambata Lane, Mumbai-400 004. PAN : AAAHS0924H Vs. ITO-19(3)(4) Matru Mandir Mumbai. (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by None Department by Shri Hoshang B. Irani Date of Hearing 20.01.2022 Date of Pronouncement 11.04.2022 O R D E R Per Shamim Yahya (AM) :- This appeal by the assessee was earlier disposed off by the Tribunal vide order dated 26.7.2019. Subsequently, in M.A. No. 48/Mum/2020 vide order dated 11.12.2020 the order was recalled only to adjudicate ground No 3 therein which had remained un-adjudicated. Pursuant to the aforesaid recall the issue is before us. 2. The ground No. 3 in the said appeal, which is against the order of learned CIT(A) dated 5.7.2018 pertaining to A.Y. 2011-12 reads as under : “The learned CIT(A) erred in taking figure of Rs. 1,49,79,715/- whereas the total of all parties comes to Rs. 1,21,72,859/-.” 3. We have heard learned Departmental Representative and perused the records. Despite several notices, nobody appeared on behalf of the assessee. We note that on the impugned issue assessee in its appeal before learned CIT(A) has submitted as under :- M/s. Suresh Mulchand Shah HUF 2 “3. The learned Income Tax Officer was not justified in making addition of Rs. 18,72,464/- on account of 12.5% of Rs. 1,49,79,715/- the purchase treated as purchase from hawala dealers. The show-cause notice was issued for Rs. 1,21,72,859/- but made addition on the base of Rs. 1,49,79,715/-.” 4. Learned CIT(A) has dealt with the same as under :- “It is the contention of learned counsel that the AO during the course of assessment proceedings had issued the show cause notice for an amount of Rs. 1,21,72,859/-. The actual amount as per the A.O in the Reasons and assessment order is Rs. 1,49,79,715/-. Hence, it can be concluded that Rs. 1,21,72,859/- had been inadvertently mentioned by the AO. 5. Upon careful consideration, we find that the assessee’ plea has no merit. The Assessing Officer has duly given the detail of party-wise bogus purchase amounting to Rs. 1,49,79,715/-. The assessee even does not dispute the above. It submits that since in initial notice the figure was different the same should be considered and assessee should be granted substantial relief accordingly. We do not find any merit in this plea. Hence the same is rejected. 6. In the result, this ground stands dismissed. 7. The above order has to be read alongwith the ITAT order dated 26.07.2019 wherein other grounds have been adjudicated. Order pronounced in the open court on 11.04.2022. Sd/- Sd/- (AMRJIT SINGH) (SHAMIM YAHYA) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Mumbai; Dated : 11/04/2022 Copy of the Order forwarded to : 1. The Appellant 2. The Respondent 3. The CIT(A) 4. CIT 5. DR, ITAT, Mumbai M/s. Suresh Mulchand Shah HUF 3 6. Guard File. BY ORDER, //True Copy// (Assistant Registrar) PS ITAT, Mumbai