SHRI NIRAV P. DOSHI,MUMBAI vs. I.T.O. WARD-3(3), KAYAN , KALYAN

The Assessee/appellant herein has preferred these appeals against the orders even dated 16.03.2023 impugned herein passed by National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi {in short ‘NFAC ’}/Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal) {in short ‘Ld. Commissioner’} u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act 1961 (in short ‘the Act’) for AYs 2009-10 to 2011-12.

For brevity has been taken as a lead casein which at the outset, I observe that there is a delay of 38 days in filling the instant appeal, on which the Assessee has claimed that though the impugned order was uploaded on the e-mail filing portal and sent through e- mail as well, however, the e-mail was missed by the asssessee as the same was received in sundry e-mail but not in regular e-mail folder. Somehow somewhere in the month of May, 2023 the Assessee checked the instant appeal’s proceedings at e-filing portal and then only came to know about the passing of the impugned order and thereafter immediately on 22nd June, 2023 filed the instant appeal but with the delay of 38 days. As there is nothing contrary against the claim of the Assessee, hence considering the said claim of the Assessee as bonafide and genuine, the delay of 38 days in filing of the instant appeal is condoned.

Coming to the merits of this case, the Assessee derives its income from business of trading in Iron Steel Pipe, Pipes Fitting etc. under the name and style of M/s Paras Sales Corporation (Prop. Nirav P. Doshi) and during the year under consideration by filing its return of income dated 29th Sept, 2009, declared total income of Rs. 3,68,430/- and has also shown gross profit of Rs. 18,91,057/- on the total turnover of Rs. 1,57,89,075/-, which worked out to 11.97%. The AO on the basis of the information received from Sales Tax Department, Maharashtra with regard to certain persons involved in providing entries for tax purchase bills to a large number of tax payers and the Assessee has also obtained tax purchase bills from various parties totaling to Rs. 5,97,465/-, reopened the case of the Assessee by recording reasons u/s 147 of the Act and asked the Assessee to substantiate its claim and issued notices u/s 133(6) of the Act to 3 2269 & 2270/Mum/2023 Shri Nirav P. Doshi . supplier parties, which returned back as unserved. Even the Assessee on being asked, also failed to bring supplier parties before the AO. The AO therefore considering the peculiar facts “that Income Tax Inspector reported that no business activities were carried out at the addresses of the other concerns and the Assessee also not produced any reconciliation of quantity and quality wise details of purchase, sale and stock in trade for the year under consideration to establish its claim. Audit Report clearly mentions that the Assessee has not maintained the stock register” ultimately disallowed the entire claim of purchase of Rs. 5,97,465/- and added the same in the total income of the Assessee u/s 69C of the Act, which stands affirmed by the ld. Commissioner in first appeal. The ld. AR, Mr. Shashank Mehta submitted that a reasonable profit element can be estimated by considering various judgments passed by Hon’ble Co-ordinate Benches of the Tribunal, wherein identical trading business and circumstances, have been considered by the Tribunal.