IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH SMC, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI VIKAS AWASTHY, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI G.MANJUNATHA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO.7218/MUM/2018(A.Y.2011-12) ITO-33(3)(2), R.NO.612, 6 TH FLOOR, C-12, PRATYAKSHKAR BHAVAN, BKC, MUMBAI 400 051 ...... APPELLANT VS. TARUNA R DALAL, 4-503, CHALLENGER, THAKUR VILLAGE, KAMDIVALI (E), MUMBAI 400 101 PAN:AELPD2969N ..... RES PONDENT APPELLANT BY : MS. R. KAVITHA RESPONDENT BY : NONE DATE OF HEARING : 18/02/2020 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 20/02/2020 ORDER PER VIKAS AWASTHY, JM: THIS APPEAL BY THE REVENUE IS DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER OF COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(APPEALS)-45,MUMBAI (IN S HORT CIT(A)) DATED 19/09/2018 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2011-12. 2. NOTICE OF APPEAL WAS SENT TO THE ASSESSEE THROUG H RPAD. THE ACKNOWLEDGEMENT CARD AVAILABLE ON RECORD SHOWS THAT THE NOTICE WAS DULY SERVED. DESPITE SERVICE OF NOTICE NEITHER THE ASSE SSEE NOR ANY AUTHORIZED 2 ITA NO.7218/MUM/2018(A.Y.2011-12) REPRESENTATIVE OF THE ASSESSEE WAS PRESENT IN THE COURT. WE FURTHER OBSERVE THAT EVEN BEFORE THE FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY NONE APPEARED ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE. IT SEEMS THAT THE ASSESSEE IS NOT KEEN T O DEFEND THE IMPUGNED ORDER. UNDER SUCH CIRCUMSTANCES WE ARE CONSTRAINED TO TAKE UP THE APPEAL FOR ADJUDICATION WITH THE ASSISTANCE OF LD. DEPARTMENTA L REPRESENTATIVE AND THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. 3 MS. R. KAVITHA, REPRESENTING THE DEPARTMENT SU BMITTED THAT ON THE BASIS OF INFORMATION RECEIVED FROM THE SALES TAX DE PARTMENT, MAHARASHTRA, THE ASSESSING OFFICER REOPENED THE ASSESSMENT FOR A SSESSMENT YEAR 2011-12. THE ASSESSEE HAD OBTAINED BOGUS PURCHASE BILLS AMO UNTING TO RS.4,71,672/- FROM M/S. ARUN PAPER AND IRON TRADERS, A DECLARED H AWALA OPERATOR. IN ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, THE ASSESSEE FAILED TO PRO DUCE DELIVERY CHALLAN, LORRY RECEIPT, ETC. TO SUBSTANTIATE TRAIL OF GOODS. FURTHER, THE ASSESSEE FAILED TO PROVIDE THE WHEREABOUTS OF THE DEALER FROM WHOM BO GUS PURCHASE BILLS WERE PROCURED. THE ASSESSING OFFICER ESTIMATED GP @25% ON THE BOGUS PURCHASES, THUS, DISALLOWANCE OF RS.1,17,918/- WAS MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. THE ASSESSEE CARRIED THE ISSUE IN APPEAL BEFORE THE CIT (A). THE CIT(A) FURTHER RESTRICTED THE ADDITION TO 12.5%. THE LD. DEPARTMEN TAL REPRESENTATIVE SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE IS ENGAGED IN MANUFACTU RING OF CORRUGATED BOXES. THE GP ESTIMATED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER ON BOGUS PURCHASES IS FAIR AND REASONABLE. THE LD. DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE PR AYED FOR CONFIRMING THE FINDING OF ASSESSING OFFICER. 4. WE HAVE HEARD THE SUBMISSIONS MADE BY LD. DEPART MENTAL REPRESENTATIVE AND HAVE PERUSED THE ORDERS OF AUTHO RITIES BELOW. THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN REASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS HELD THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS 3 ITA NO.7218/MUM/2018(A.Y.2011-12) PROCURED BOGUS PURCHASES TO THE TUNE OF RS.4,71,672 /-. THE ASSESSING OFFICER MADE DISALLOWANCE ON ACCOUNT OF BOGUS PURCHASES AT 25% OF SUCH NON-GENUINE PURCHASES. IN FIRST APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS THE CIT( A) RESTRICTED THE SAME TO 12.5%. TAKING INTO CONSIDERATION ENTIRETY OF FACTS WE FIND THE ORDER OF CIT(A) REASONABLE AND JUSTIFIED, HENCE, WARRANTS NO INTERF ERENCE. THE APPEAL OF THE REVENUE IS DISMISSED BEING DEVOID OF ANY MERIT. 5. IN THE RESULT, APPEAL OF THE REVENUE IS DISMISSE D. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON THURSDAY THE 20 TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2020. SD/- SD/- (G.MANJUNATHA) (VIKAS AWASTHY) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER MUMBAI, DATED 20/02/2020 VM , SR. PS(O/S) COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. THE APPELLANT , 2. THE RESPONDENT. 3. THE CIT(A)- 4. CIT 5. DR, ITAT, MUMBAI 6. GUARD FILE. BY ORDER, //TRUE COPY// (DY./ASSTT. REGISTRAR) ITAT, MUMBAI