V.K. DEVELOPERS, MUMBAI V. ITO 24(2)(3), MUMBAI

ITA 6235/MUM/2014

• Counselvise Citation: [2016] 131 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 3036 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 11 month(s) 13 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 21-09-2016
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: F
• Next Hearing Date: 15-09-2016
• Assessment Year: 2009-2010
• Appeal Filed On: 08-10-2014
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: VIJAY KUMAR SONI
• Keywords: Bogus purchase; Additional evidence; Wrong claim
• Section: 143(3); 133(6)

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL 'F' BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI JASON P. BOAZ, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA NO. 6235/MUM/2014 (ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2009-19) M/S. V.K. DEVELOPERS VS. INCOME TAX OFFICER 604, 6 TH FLOOR C/O. VINOD V. BHATIA SARALA SADAN, S.G. ROAD MALAD (W), MUMBAI 400064 WARD 24(2)(3) MUMBAI PAN - AAGFV0235L APPELLANT RESPONDENT APPELLANT BY: NONE RESPONDENT BY: SHRI VIJAY KUMAR SONI DATE OF HEARING: 15.09.2016 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT: 21.09.2016 O R D E R PER JASON P. BOAZ, A.M. THIS APPEAL BY THE ASSESSEE IS DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A)- 34, MUMBAI DATED 21.07.2014 FOR A.Y. 2009-10. 2. IN THIS APPEAL THE ASSESSEE HAS RAISED THE FOLLOWIN G GROUNDS: - 1. THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN FACT AND LAW BY NOT CONSIDERING THE EVIDENCES SUBMITTED BEFORE HIM AND CONFIRMING THE A DDITION OF RS.7,22,500/- IN CASE OF PURCHASES MADE FROM DHANRA J MARKETING BY RELYING ON THE REMAND REPORT WHICH IS BEEN BASED ON PARTIAL INFORMATION WITHOUT CONSIDERING EVIDENCES ON RECORD . 2. THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN FACT AND LAW BY NOT CONSIDERING THE EVIDENCE ON RECORD AND CONFIRMING THE ADDITION OF R S.7,22,500/-. 3. THE APPELLANT CRAVES LEAVE TO ADD, ALTER, AMEND OR DROP ANY GROUNDS OF APPEAL AT THE TIME OF THE APPEAL PROCEED INGS. 3. THE CASE WAS FIXED FOR HEARING ON A NUMBER OF OCCAS IONS, BUT NONE WAS PERSENT FOR THE ASSESSEE NOR WAS ANY REQUEST FO R ADJOURNMENT OF HEARING FURNISHED. EVEN THE NOTICE SENT BY RPAD WAS RETURNED BACK UNSERVED. EVEN ON THE LAST DATE OF HEARING, I.E. 15 .09.2016, WHEN THE CASE ITA NO. 6235/MUM/2014 M/S. V.K. DEVELOPERS 2 WAS CALLED FOR HEARING, NONE WAS PRESENT FOR THE AS SESSEE, BUT THE LEARNED D.R. FOR REVENUE WAS PRESENT AND READY TO ARGUE FOR REVENUE. IN THESE CIRCUMSTANCES, WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT THE ASSESSEE IS NOT SERIOUS OR INTERESTED IN PURSUING THIS APPEAL AND WE THEREFORE PROCEED TO DISPOSE OFF THIS APPEAL WITH THE ASSISTANCE OF THE LEARNED D.R. FOR REVENUE AND THE MATERIAL ON RECORD. 4. FROM THE GROUNDS RAISED (SUPRA), IT IS SEEN THAT TH E ONLY ISSUE FOR CONSIDERATION AND ADJUDICATION BEFORE US IS WITH RE GARD TO THE LEARNED CIT(A) CONFIRMING THE ADDITION OF ` 7,22,500/- IN RESPECT OF PURCHASES MADE FROM DHANRAJ MARKETING. IT IS THE CONTENTION OF THE ASSESSEE IN THESE GROUNDS THAT THE LEARNED CIT(A) ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE ADDITION OF ` 7,22,500/- IN RESPECT OF PURCHASES FROM DHANRAJ MAR KETING BY RELYING ON THE ASSESSING OFFICERS (AO) REMAND REPORT, INSTEAD OF CONSIDERING THE EVIDENCE PUT FORTH BY THE ASSESSEE. 5.1 THE LEARNED D.R. FOR REVENUE STRONGLY SUPPORTED THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW ON THIS ISSUE. ACCORDING TO THE L EARNED D.R., IN THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, THE AO HAD ISSUED NOTICE UNDER SECTION 133(6) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 (IN SHORT 'THE A CT') TO M/S. DHANRAJ MARKETING IN RESPECT OF PURCHASES OF ` 7,22,500/- SHOWN TO HAVE BEEN MADE FROM THIS PARTY BY THE ASSESSEE; AND SINCE THE RE WAS NO RESPONSE THERETO, THE ASSESSEE WAS REQUIRED TO PRODUCE THIS PARTY BEFORE THE AO FOR EXAMINATION. FAILURE TO DO SO, LED TO THE AO BEING OF THE VIEW THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD FAILED TO ESTABLISH THE GENUINENESS OF THE PURCHASE OF ` 7,22,500/- FROM M/S. DHANRAJ MARKETING AND THE SAME WAS ADDED TO THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE AS UNPROVED/BOGUS PURCHASES. 5.2 THE LEARNED D.R. SUBMITTED THAT ON APPEAL, THE ASSESSEE HAD, INTER ALIA, FURNISHED CERTAIN ADDITIONAL EVIDENCES IN THE FORM OF COPY OF PURCHASE INVOICES WITH M/S. DHANRAJ MARKETING AND COPY OF LE DGER ACCOUNT BEFORE THE LEARNED CIT(A), WHO AFTER ADMITTING THE SAME CA LLED FOR A REMAND REPORT THEREON FROM THE AO. THE AOS REMAND REPORT DATED 0 5.05.2014, HOLDING THAT THE ALLEGED PURCHASES OF ` 7,22,500/- FROM DHANRAJ MARKETING WAS UNPROVED/BOGUS, WAS MADE AVAILABLE TO THE ASSESSEE. ACCORDING TO THE ITA NO. 6235/MUM/2014 M/S. V.K. DEVELOPERS 3 LEARNED D.R., THE LEARNED CIT(A), AFTER CONSIDERING THE ADDITIONAL EVIDENCES PUT FORTH BY THE ASSESSEE, THE AOS REMAND REPORT A ND THE ASSESSEES REJOINDER DATED 28.05.2014, CAME TO THE CONCLUSION THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD FAILED TO ESTABLISH THE GENUINENESS OF THE ALLEGED PURCHASES OF ` 7,22,500/- MADE FROM M/S. DHANRAJ MARKETING AND THEREFORE CONF IRMED THE ADDITION OF ` 7,22,500/- MADE BY THE AO IN THIS REGARD. THE LEARN ED D.R. PRAYED THAT IN THE LIGHT OF THE ABOVE, THE IMPUGNED ORDER OF THE LEARNED CIT(A) BE UPHELD. 6.1 WE HAVE HEARD THE LEARNED D.R. FOR REVENUE AND PERUSED AND CAREFULLY CONSIDERED THE MATERIAL ON RECORD. IT IS SEEN FROM THE IMPUGNED ORDER THAT THE APPEAL BEFORE THE LEARNED CIT(A) WAS IN RESPECT OF UNPROVED PURCHASES OF ` 9,84,653/- (VIZ. ` 2,62,158/- FROM M/S. ARIHANT ELECTRONICS AND ` 7,22,500/- FROM M/S. DHANRAJ MARKETING). WE FIND TH AT, ON THE BASIS OF ADDITIONAL EVIDENCES FILED BY THE ASSESSEE, THE AOS REMAND REPORT THEREON DATED 06.02.2014, THE ASSESSEES REJOINDER DATED 28.05.2014 ON THE AOS REMAND REPORT, THE LEARNED CIT(A), WHILE A LLOWING THE ASSESSEES APPEAL IN RESPECT OF PURCHASES OF ` 2,62,158/- FROM M/S. ARIHANT ELECTRONICS, HAS REJECTED THE ASSESSEES CONTENTION S AND UPHELD THE AOS ADDITION OF ` 7,22,500/- ON ACCOUNT OF UNPROVED PURCHASES FROM M/ S. DHANRAJ MARKETING, HOLDING AS UNDER: - 2. THE ONLY GROUND OF APPEAL RELATES TO ADDITION O F ` 9,84,658/- ON ACCOUNT OF UNPROVED PURCHASES. 2.1 THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAD DISCUSSED THIS ISSUE IN PARA 4 & 5 OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER. DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSME NT PROCEEDINGS, TO VERIFY THE GENUINENESS OF PURCHASE TRANSACTIONS SHO WN BY THE APPELLANT, NOTICES U/S. 133(6) WERE ISSUED TO FOUR PARTIES ON RANDOM. OUT OF 4 NOTICES, ONE NOTICE ISSUED U/S. 133(6) TO M/S. ARIHANT ELECTRICALS WAS RETURNED BACK BY THE POSTAL AUTHORI TIES AS UNSESRVED AND ONE PARTY M/S. DHANRAJ MARKETING HAS NOT REPLIE D THOUGH NOTICE WAS SERVED. A FRESH NOTICE U/S.133(6) WAS ISSUED TO M/S. ARIHANT ELECTRICALS ON THE NEW ADDRESS AND IN RESPONSE TO W HICH, M/S. ARIHANT ELECTRICALS REPLIED VIDE LETTER DATED 21.12.2011 TH AT THEY HAVE NOT MADE ANY SINGLE TRANSACTIONS WITH THE APPELLANT DUR ING THE A.Y,2009- 10. THE APPELLANT HAS FILED CONFIRMATION FROM M/S. ARIHANT ELECTRICALS, HOWEVER, THE PARTY HAS DENIED TO HAVE MADE ANY TRAN SACTIONS WITH THE APPELLANT DURING THE YEAR. HENCE THE APPELLANT'S CL AIM OF PURCHASES FROM M/S. ARIHANT ELECTRICALS AMOUNTING TO ` 262,158/- WERE TREATED AS UNPROVED/BOGUS PURCHASES BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. ITA NO. 6235/MUM/2014 M/S. V.K. DEVELOPERS 4 2.2. REGARDING PURCHASES FROM M/S. DHANRAJ MARKETIN G, THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAD ISSUED NOTICE U/S.133(6) TO THIS PARTY DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, BUT NO REPLY HAS BEEN RECEI VED FROM THIS PARTY. THE ONUS LIES ON THE APPELLANT TO PROVE THE GENUINENESS OF PURCHASES CLAIMED, HOWEVER, THE APPELLANT HAS FILED ONLY CONFIRMATION FROM THE PARTY AND THE PARTY HAS NOT REPLIED TO NOT ICE U/S.133(6). SINCE THE APPELLANT HAS FAILED TO PROVE THE GENUINENESS O F PURCHASE TRANSACTION WITH M/S. DHANRAJ MARKETING, THEREFORE, THE ALLEGED PURCHASES SHOWN FROM M/S. DHANRAJ MARKETING AMOUNTI NG TO ` 7,22,500/- WAS TREATED AS UNPROVED/BOGUS PURCHASES AND ADDED TO THE TOTAL INCOME OF THE APPELLANT. 2.2. DURING THE COURSE OF APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS, TH E APPELLANT HAD ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE IN THE FORM OF COPY OF PURCHASE INVOICE WITH DHANRAJ MARKETING AND COPY OF LEDGER ACCOUNT WHICH WAS ADMITTED BY ME AND HENCE THE ISSUE WAS REMANDED TO THE ASSESSIN G OFFICER FOR HIS REMAND REPORT VIDE THIS OFFICE LETTER DATED 6.2.201 4, IN RESPONSE TO WHICH THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAD FILED HIS REMAND RE PORT VIDE LETTER NO.ITO 24(2)(3)/REMAND REPORT/2014-15 DATED 0.05.20 14 THROUGH THE JCIT 24(2), MUMBAI. IN THE REMAND REPORT, THE APPEL LANT HAS REPORTED AS UNDER:- THE ISSUES REMANDED FOR VERIFICATION AND REPORT TH EREON ARE: 1. THE ASSESSMENT WAS COMPLETED U/S. 143(3) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, MAKING ADDITION OF RS. 9,84,658/- ON ACCOUNT O F UNPROVED PURCHASES FROM M/S ARIHANT ELECTRONICS AND M/S DHANRAJ MARKETING. THE REMARKS ON EXAMINATION OF THE DETAILS ARE AS UN DER:- DURING THE COURSE OF SCRUTINY PROCEEDINGS TO VERIFY THE GENUINENESS OF PURCHASE TRANSACTIONS SHOWN BY THE ASSESSEE, NOT ICE U/S 133(6) WERE ISSUED TO M/S ARIHANT ELECTRICALS WAS RETURNED BACK BY THE POSTAL AUTHORITY AS UNSERVED AND TO M/S DHANRAJ MAR KETING HAS NOT REPLIED THOUGH NOTICE WAS SERVED. THE ASSESSEE WAS ASKED TO GIVE THE NEW ADDRESS OF T HE M/S ARIHANT ELECTRICALS. THE ASSESSEE PROVIDED THE NEW ADDRESS OF M/S ARIHANT ELECTRONICS, ACCORDINGLY NOTICE U/S. 133(6) WAS ISSUED AND IN RESPONSE M/S ARIHANT ELECTRONICS REPLIED VIDE TH EIR LETTER DATED 21.12.2011 RECEIVED IN THIS OFFICE ON DTD. 22.12.20 11 THAT THEY HAVE NOT MADE ANY SINGLE TRANSACTIONS WITH THE ASSE SSEE DURING THE A.Y. 2009-10. ASSESSEE FILED CONFIRMATION OF M/S . ARIHANT ELECTRONICS EVEN THOUGH M/S ARIHANT ELECTRI CALS DENIED THAT THEY HAVE NOT MADE ANY TRANSACTION WITH THE ASSESSE E, THEREFORE ADDITION WERE MADE IN THE TOTAL INCOME OF THE ASSES SEE OF RS. 2,62,158/- TREATED AS UNPROVED/BOGUS CLAIM OF PURCH ASES. SIMILARLY ASSESSEE FILED CONFIRMATION FROM M/S DHAN RAJ MARKETING FOR THE PURCHASES CLAIMED BY ASSESSEE OF RS. 7,22,500/- . NOTICE WAS ISSUED U/S. 133(6) TO M/S DHANRAJ MARK ETING WHICH WAS DULY SERVED BUT NO REPLY WAS RECEIVED TILL THE ORDER U/S. 143(3) ITA NO. 6235/MUM/2014 M/S. V.K. DEVELOPERS 5 OF THE I.T. ACT, WAS PASSED. HENCE, THE ADDITION WE RE MADE OF RS.7,22,500/- AS UNPROVED / BOGUS CLAIM OF PURCHASE S. DURING THE REMAND PROCEEDINGS TO VERIFY THE GENUINENESS NOTICE U/S. 133(6) WAS SERVED BY THE POSTAL AUTHORITY TO M/S DHANRAJ M ARKETING ON DT. 26.02.2014 AND BY WARD INSPECTOR ON DT. 22.04.2 014 WHICH WAS DULY SERVED BUT NO REPLY WAS RECEIVED TILL DATE . IT CAN BE SEEN THAT EVEN THOUGH THE NOTICES WERE ISSUED TO M/S DHA NRAJ MARKETING NO RESPONSE HAS BEEN RECEIVED BY THIS OFFICE AND SO ON THE GENUINENESS OF THE TRANSACTIONS RESTS UNPROVED. THE REFORE, THE PURCHASES SHOWN FROM M/S DHANRAJ MARKETING ARE TREA TED AS UNPROVED/BOGUS.' A COPY OF THE REMAND REPORT WAS SENT TO THE AUTHORI ZED REPRESENTATIVE OF THE APPELLANT, IN RESPONSE TO WHICH THE AUTHORIZ ED REPRESENTATIVE OF THE APPELLANT HAS SUBMITTED REJOINDER VIDE LETTER D ATED 28.5.2014. THE CONTENTS OF THE REJOINDER IS REPRODUCED AS UNDER- 'THE CREDITORS COMPRISES OF TWO PARTIES NAMELY:- 1. M/S. ARIHANT ELECTRICALS : ` 2,62,158/- 2. M/S. DHANRAJ MARKETING : ` 7,22,500/- M/S.ARIHANT ELECTRICALS DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT THE LEARNED ITO HAD CALLED FOR CONFIRMATION OF PURCHASE U/S.133(6). DUE TO SOME MISUNDERSTANDING M/S. ARIHANT ELECTRICALS DID NOT C ONFIRM TRANSACTION WITH OUR CLIENT WHO HAD ONLY ONE TRANSA CTION DURING THE YEAR FOR WHICH PAYMENT WAS MADE BY A/C. PAYEE CHEQU E TO THEM. HOWEVER LEDGER ACCOUNT CONFIRMED BY M/S. ARIHANT EL ECTRICALS AS APPEARING IN OUR BOOKS WERE FILED WITH LEARNED ITO. COPY OF BANK STATEMENT AND CONFIRMED LEDGER ACCOUNT IS ENCLOSED FOR PERUSAL OF YOUR HONOUR. M/S.DHANRAJ MARKETING: DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT THE ITO HAD CALLED FOR CONFIRMATION OF PURCHASES U/S.133(6). LEDGER ACCOUN T AS APPEARING IN OUR BOOKS OF ACCOUNT WAS FILED WITH LEARNED ITO. THE CONCERNED PERSON IN M/S. DHANRAJ MARKETING WAS OUT OF STATION AND THEREFORE CONFIRMATION COULD NOT BE FILED D AT THE TIME OF AS SESSMENT. IT IS NOW CONFIRMED BY THEM AND COPY OF LETTER FILED WITH INCOME TAX OFFICER ENCLOSED HEREWITH FOR PERUSAL OF YOUR HONOU R. IN THE REMAND REPORT COPY OF WHICH IS GIVEN TO US T HE LEARNED ITO STICK TO THE FINDINGS & ASSUMPTION OF HIS PREDECESS OR. INFACT HE DID NOT UNDERSTOOD FACTS OF OUR CHASE. IT WAS SUBMITTED BEFORE LEARNED ITO THAT OUR CLIENT IS IN CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITY AND GENERALLY CONTRACT IS GIVEN TO A CONTRACTOR WITH MATERIAL AND IT IS TH E CONTRACTOR WHO PLACES ORDER FOR REQUIRED MATERIAL AT SITE AND PAYM ENT IS MADE BY OUR CLIENT. IN SUCH CASES CREDITOR DIRECTLY KNOWS C ONTRACTOR AND THEREFORE TRANSACTION COULD NOT BE CONFIRMED IN CAS E OF M/S. ARIHANT ELECTRICALS. ITA NO. 6235/MUM/2014 M/S. V.K. DEVELOPERS 6 THE LEARNED ITO EVEN FAILED TO TAKE NOTE OF CONFIRM ATION FILED BY M/S. DHANRAJ MARKETING IN HIS OFFICE ON 11.4.2014 I N RESPONSE TO NOTICE. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE FACTS WE REQUEST YOUR HONOUR T O ALLOW APPEAL AND OBLIGE.' 2.3. I HAVE CONSIDERED THE IMPUGNED ASSESSMENT ORDE R, REMAND REPORT AND REJOINDER FILED BY THE APPELLANT. REGARDING M/S . ARIHANT ELECTRICALS, IN THE REMAND REPORT, THE ASSESSING OF FICER HAS REPORTED THAT THE APPELLANT HAS FILED CONFIRMATION OF M/S. A RIHANT ELECTRICALS EVEN THOUGH M/S. ARIHANT ELECTRICALS DENIED THAT TH EY HAVE NOT MADE ANY TRANSACTION WITH THE APPELLANT. HOWEVER, IN THE REJOINDER, THE AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE OF THE APPELLANT HAS STAT ED THAT THE APPELLANT IS IN CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITY AND GENERALLY CONTRACT IS GIVEN TO A CONTRACTOR WITH MATERIAL AT SITE AND PAYMENT IS MAD E BY THE APPELLANT. IN SUCH CASES CREDITOR DIRECTLY KNOWS CONTRACTOR AN D THEREFORE TRANSACTION COULD NOT BE CONFIRMED IN CASE OF M/S. ARIHANT ELECTRICALS WHICH IS FOUND TO BE CORRECT. THE AUTHORIZED REPRES ENTATIVE OF THE APPELLANT HAS FURNISHED COPY OF BANK STATEMENT AND CONFIRMED LEDGER ACCOUNT CONFIRMED BY M/S. ARIHANT ELECTRICALS AS AP PEARING IN THE APPELLANT'S BOOKS TO SUBSTANTIATE THE CLAIM IN RESP ECT OF M/S. ARIHANT ELECTRICALS. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE, THE ADDITION OF ` 2,62,158/- MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER ON ACCOUNT OF UNPROVED PUR CHASES FROM ARIHANT ELECTRICALS IS DIRECTED TO BE DELETED. 2.3.1. REGARDING M/S. DHANRAJ MARKETING, DURING THE COURSE OF REMAND PROCEEDINGS, TO VERIFY THE GENUINENESS OF THE TRANS ACTION, NOTICE U/S.133(6) WAS SERVED ON M/S. DHANRAJ MARKETING BUT NO REPLY WAS RECEIVED. HENCE THE GENUINENESS OF THE TRANSACTIONS RESTS UNPROVED. THEREFORE, IN THE REMAND REPORT, THE PURCHASES SHOW N FROM M/S. DHANRAJ MARKETING WERE TREATED AS UNPROVED/BOGUS. IN VIEW OF THE REMAND REPORT, THE ADDITION OF ` 7,22,500/- ON ACCOUNT OF PURCHASES FROM DHANRAJ MARKETING IS CONFIRMED. HENC E THE DISALLOWANCE RESTRICTED TO ` 7,22,500/- ( ` 9,84,658 (-) ` 2,62,158/-). 6.2 FROM A PERUSAL OF THE IMPUGNED ORDER OF THE LEA RNED CIT(A) ON THE ISSUE OF BOGUS/UNPROVED PURCHASE OF ` 7,22,500/- FROM M/S. DHANRAJ MARKETING (SUPRA), WE FIND THAT THE LEARNED CIT(A), AFTER JUDICIOUSLY CONSIDERING ALL THE MATERIAL ON RECORD, I.E. THE AD DITIONAL EVIDENCE FILED BY THE ASSESSEE, THE AOS REMAND REPORT THEREON AND TH E ASSESSEES REJOINDER DATED 28.05.2014 TO THE AOS REMAND REPORT, RENDERE D THE ABOVE FINDING CONFIRMING THE ADDITION MADE BY THE AO. EXCEPT FOR RAISING THE GROUND, NO MATERIAL EVIDENCE HAS BEEN PLACED BEFORE US TO CONT ROVERT THE FINDING RENDERED BY THE LEARNED CIT(A) (SUPRA). WE, THEREFO RE, IN THE FACTUAL MATRIX OF THE CASE, AS DISCUSSED ABOVE, UPHOLD THE ORDER O F THE LEARNED CIT(A) ITA NO. 6235/MUM/2014 M/S. V.K. DEVELOPERS 7 CONFIRMING THE ADDITION OF ` 7,22,500/- ON ACCOUNT OF BOGUS/UNPROVED PURCHASES FROM M/S. DHANRAJ MARKETING. CONSEQUENTLY , GROUNDS 1 TO 3 OF THE ASSESSEES APPEAL ARE DISMISSED. 5. IN THE RESULT, THE ASSESSEES APPEAL FOR A.Y. 2009- 10 IS DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 21 ST SEPTEMBER, 2016. SD/ - SD/ - (SANDEEP GOSAIN) (JASON P. BOAZ) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER MUMBAI, DATED: 21 ST SEPTEMBER, 2016 COPY TO: 1. THE APPELLANT 2. THE RESPONDENT 3. THE CIT(A) -34, MUMBAI 4. THE CIT - 24, MUMBAI 5. THE DR, F BENCH, ITAT, MUMBAI BY ORDER //TRUE COPY// ASSISTANT REGISTRAR ITAT, MUMBAI BENCHES, MUMBAI N.P.