SWAR CREATIVE ART PVT. LTD., MUMBAI V. ITO - 13(2)(4), MUMBAI

ITA 880/MUM/2017

• Counselvise Citation: [2017] 127 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 0359 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 6 month(s) 13 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 21-08-2017
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Next Hearing Date: 06-07-2017
• Assessment Year: 2009-2010
• Appeal Filed On: 07-02-2017
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: N HEMALATHA
• Keywords: Bogus purchase
• Section: 133(6)

Judgement Text

THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL SMC BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI B.R. BASKARAN (AM) I.T.A. NO. 880 /MUM/ 2 017 (ASSESSMENT YEAR 20 09 - 10 ) SWAR CREATIVE ART PRIVATE LTD. 303/2A, DHEERAJ VALLEY SAIBABA COMPLEX, CIBA ROAD GOREGAON EAST MUMBAI - 400 063. VS. ITO 13(2)(4) 3 RD FLOOR AAYAKAR BHAVAN M.K. ROAD MUMBAI - 400 020. ( APPELLANT ) ( RESPONDENT ) PAN NO . AAMCS5447G ASSESSEE BY NONE DEPARTMENT BY MS. N. HEMALATHA DATE OF HEARING 21 . 8 . 201 7 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT 21 . 8 . 201 7 O R D E R THE AS SESSEE HAS FILED THIS APPEAL CHALLENGING THE ORDER DATED 02.11.2016 PASSED BY LD CIT(A) - 21, MUMBAI IN CONFIRMING THE ADDITION RELATING TO ALLEGED BOGUS PURCHASES MADE IN AY 2000 - 10. NONE APPEARED ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE, EVEN THOUGH THE NOTICE OF HEARIN G WAS SENT THROUGH THE REVENUE AND IT WAS SERVED. HENCE I PROCEED TO DISPOSE OF THE APPEAL, EX - PARTE, WITHOUT THE PRESENCE OF THE ASSESSEE. 2. I HEARD LD D.R AND PERUSED THE RECORD. THE ASSESSEE IS ENGAGED IN THE BUSINESS OF CREATIVE ART DIRECTION A ND ALSO CARRYING ON THE BUSINESS OF DECORATORS, DESIGNERS ETC. CONSEQUENT TO THE INFORMATION RECEIVED FROM THE SALES TAX DEPARTMENT, IT CAME TO THE NOTICE OF THE REVENUE THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS MADE PURCHASES TO THE TUNE OF RS.17,56,910/ - DURING THE YEAR UN DER CONSIDERATION FROM TWO OF THE PARTIES, WHO WERE LISTED OUT BY THE SALES TAX DEPARTMENT AS HAWALA DEALERS, I.E., THEY PROVIDED ONLY ACCOMMODATION BILLS 2 WITHOUT ACTUALLY SUPPLYING THE MATERIAL. HENCE THE AO REOPENED THE ASSESSMENT. DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, THE AO ISSUED NOTICES U/S 133(6) OF THE ACT TO THESE TWO PARTIES, BUT THEY WERE RETURNED UNSERVED. THE ASSESSEE ALSO COULD NOT PRODUCE THOSE PARTIES. THE ASSESSEE ALSO DID NOT FURNISH QUANTITY DETAILS. THOUGH THE AO TREATED THE ABOVE SAID AMOUNT OF RS.17,56,910/ - AS BOGUS PURCHASES, YET HE PREFERRED TO DISALLOW 25% OF THE PURCHASES ON THE REASONING THAT THE ASSESSEE COULD NOT HAVE EXECUTED ITS WORKS WITHOUT PURCHASING THE MATERIALS. THE LD CIT(A) ALSO SUSTAINED THE ADDITION AND H ENCE THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED THIS APPEAL. 3. I HEARD LD D.R AND PERUSED THE RECORD. I NOTICE THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS FAILED TO PROVE THAT THE MATERIALS WERE ACTUALLY RECEIVED AND THEY WERE USED IN ITS BUSINESS. FURTHER, THE NOTICES ISSUED BY THE AO U/S 133(6) OF THE ACT HAVE BEEN RETURNED BACK UNSERVED. THE ASSESSEE ALSO COULD NOT PRODUCE THE SUPPLIERS TO ESTABLISH GENUINENESS OF THE PURCHASES. BEFORE US, NO MATERIAL WAS PLACED BY THE ASSESSEE IN ORDER TO COMPEL US TO INTERFERE WITH THE DECISION RENDER ED BY LD CIT(A). UNDER THESE SET OF FACTS, I HAVE NO OTHER OPTION BUT TO CONFIRM THE ORDER PASSED BY LD CIT(A). 4. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS DISMISSED. ORDER HAS BE EN PRONOUNCED IN THE COURT ON 21 . 8 . 201 7. SD/ - (B.R .BASKARAN) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER MUMBAI ; DATED : 21 / 8 / 20 1 7 COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. THE APPELLANT 2. THE RESPONDENT 3. THE CIT(A) 4. CIT 5. DR, ITAT, MUMBAI 3 6. GUARD FILE. BY ORDER, //TRUE COPY// ( DY./ASSTT. REGISTRAR) PS ITAT, MUMBAI