Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI “SMC” BENCH: NEW DELHI
Before: SHRI KUL BHARAT
ORDER
PER KUL BHARAT, JM :
The present appeal filed by the assessee for the assessment year 2007- 08 is directed against the order of Ld. CIT(A)-16, New Delhi dated 23.08.2016. The assessee has raised following grounds of appeal:- 1. “That the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) -16, New Delhi has erred in deciding the appellate proceedings by confirming the additions made by the learned Assessing Officer without providing a reasonable opportunity to the appellant to submit and substantiate his claim on the additions made by the Learned Assessing.
2. That the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) -16, New Delhi has erred in confirming an addition a sum of Rs.3,18,262.00 on account of purported unverifiable purchases claimed by the appellant.
3. That the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) -16, New Delhi has further erred in not appreciating the fact that the addition has been made after reopening of assessments in spite of the fact that the Learned Assessing Officer did not follow the procedure of reopening the assessments once the original assessment was also completed u/s 143 (3) of the Act.
4. That it is accordingly prayed that the additions confirmed by the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) may kindly be deleted.
5. That the appellant craves leave to add or amend any ground of appeal
.”
2. At the time of hearing, no one attended the proceedings on behalf of the assessee. It is seen from the records that no one has been attending the proceedings on behalf of the assessee since 11.05.2017. Therefore, the appeal is taken up for hearing in the absence of the assessee and is being decided on the basis of the material placed on record.
3. The only effective ground raised by the assessee in this appeal is against the sustaining of addition of Rs. 3,18,262/- on account of alleged unverifiable purchases.
Facts giving rise to the present appeal are that the case of the assessee was re-opened on the basis that there was information that the assessee was taking entry of bogus purchases from the concerns run by Navneet Jain & Sh. Vaibhav Jain. In response to the statutory notices, Ld. Authorized Representative (“AR”) of the assessee attended the assessment proceedings. However, the Assessing Officer (“AO”) did not accept the explanation offered by the assessee. The AO further recorded that the notice u/s 133(6) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (“the Act”) was issued to the parties to confirm as to whether they have made sale to Shri Vikram Wadhera, Prop. of M/s Vikram Rubbers. He noted that the notices have been received back from the postal authorities unserved. The AO issued another notice to the assessee to produce these parties. However, the assessee could not produce the parties for verification hence, the AO treated the purchase as unverified and made addition of Rs.3,18,262/-.
Aggrieved against this, the assessee preferred appeal before Ld.CIT(A) who after considering the submissions, sustained the addition and dismissed the appeal of the assessee.
Aggrieved against the order of Ld.CIT(A), the assessee is in appeal before this Tribunal.
Apropos to grounds of appeal, Ld. Sr. DR opposed these submissions and supported the orders of the authorities below. He submitted that the assessee had claimed certain purchases of Rs.1,80,762/- from M/s. Vardhman Enterprises and Rs.1,37,700/- from M/s. V.V. Enterprises. The assessee was required to prove these purchases but he failed to do so. Therefore, the authorities below are justified in making the addition.
8. I have heard Ld. Sr. DR for the Revenue and perused the material available on record and gone through the orders of the authorities below. I find that Ld.CIT(A) has given finding on fact by observing as under:-
“During the appellate proceedings, the Ld AR of the appellant Sh Shalabh Jasoria filed his submission vide letter dated 23/08/2016 and submitted the details of expenditure as under:- Name of the Item Bill Amount Mode of making payment Seller No. Vardhman G.M.HYDRANT 1046 180562/- Ch.No.58 dated Enterprises G.M.COUNPLING 26.03.2007 drawn on (OBC) Rs.77250/- Ch.No.717550 dated 2.5.2007 drawn on HDFC Rs.12300/- Ch.No.705174 dated 8.5.2008 drawn on OBC for Rs.91012/- Vee Vee HOSE REEL 185 137700/- CH.No.717549 dated Page | 3 Enterprises DRUM 02.05.2007 drawn on GM TWO WAY HDFC Bank Ltd. for HOSE BOX Rs.137700/- From the perusal of the assessment record as well as the submission of the appellant it is amply clear that the Assessing Officer did try to verify the genuineness of purchases. He issued notices u/s 133(6) and summons u/s 131. Both these remained unserved before the Assessing Officer. To 'provide the correct details of the parties from whom the purchases have been made, is the responsibility of the purchaser, especially if the purchaser claims to have made payment by cheque. The appellant at no time before Assessing Officer made any attempt to facilitate the verification, In fact, the appellant remained totally aloof and unconcerned. In such circumstances when the Assessing Officer's efforts were not bearing fruits, and the appellant was confident of genuineness of transaction, he should have helped the Assessing Officer to complete the verification. Just to throw up the hands and say its Assessing Officer's baby was not called for. The Assessing Officer was thus sent on wild goose chase. The case laws, relied upon by the appellant do not have anything in common as far as the facts of this case are concerned. To my mind the Assessing Officer was left with no option but to treat the purchases as non genuine, in the absence, of any other mode of verification. Therefore the action of the AO is confirmed.”
The above finding on fact recorded by Ld.CIT(A) is not rebutted by the assessee by placing any contrary material on record therefore, grounds raised by the assessee are rejected.
In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed.
Order pronounced in the open Court on 30th January, 2023.