SOLUTION INC, MUMBAI V. ITO - 25 (1)(2), MUMBAI

MA 78/MUM/2020

• Counselvise Citation: [2022] 104 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 4478 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 2 month(s) 21 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Miscellaneous Application
• Pronouncement Date: 04-05-2022
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Assessment Year: 2010-2011
• Appeal Filed On: 13-02-2020
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Assessee Lawyers: PARTH JAIN RAJENDRA JAIN
• Keywords: Bogus purchase

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, ‘SMC‘ BENCH MUMBAI BEFORE: SHRI M.BALAGANESH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER & MS. KAVITHA RAJAGOPAL , JUDICIAL MEMBER M.A. No.78/Mum/2020 (Arising out of ITA No.5458/Mum/2018) (Asse ssment Year :2010-11) M/s. Solution Inc. Unit No.4, Maplle-Morya Classic, Plot No.B-18 Off. New Link Road, Near Infinity Mall Andheri (W) Mumbai – 400 053 Vs. The ITO-25(1)(2) Kautilya Bhavan BKC, Bandra (E) Mumbai – 400 051 PAN/GIR No. AAZFS6782Q (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Assessee by Shri Parth Jain / Shri Rajendra Jain Revenue by Shri Hoshang B Irani Date of Hearing 25/02/2022 Date of Pronouncement 05/05/2022 आदेश / O R D E R PER M. BALAGANESH (A.M): By virtue of this Miscellaneous Application, the assessee seeks to recall the order passed by this Tribunal wherein the Tribunal had disposed of the appeal on merits even though none appeared on behalf of the assessee. The issue involved was estimation of profit on bogus purchases. The Tribunal by considering the decision of the Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in the case of CIT vs. Simit P Sheth reported in 356 ITR 451 had upheld the profit percentage embedded in the value of bogus purchases MA No. 78/Mum/2020 M/s. Solution Inc. 2 at 12.5%. Before us the ld. AR argued that the notice of hearing was not sent to the assessee. But we find from the file that the notice was duly sent at the address mentioned in the form No.36 by the assessee. Thereafter, if assessee had changed this address, the same would not tantamount to mistake committed by the Tribunal. What could be rectified u/s.254(2) of the Act is only the primafacie mistake apparent on record committed by the Tribunal. In the instant case, we hold that the mistake is committed by the assessee and not by the Tribunal. Hence, we do not deem it fit to interfere in the order passed by this Tribunal. Accordingly, the Miscellaneous Application of the assessee is dismissed. 3. In the result, Miscellaneous Application of the assessee is dismissed. Order pronounced on 05/05/2022 by way of proper mentioning in the notice board. Sd/- (KAVITHA RAJAGOPAL) Sd/- (M.BALAGANESH) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Mumbai; Dated 05/05/2022 KARUNA, sr.ps MA No. 78/Mum/2020 M/s. Solution Inc. 3 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//