MUKESH VINODKUMAR SINGH,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER 2(5). THANE , MUMBAI

This is an appeal preferred by the assessee against the order of the Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC, Delhi dated 29.11.2022 for AY. 2009-10.

The main grievance of the assessee is against the action of the Ld. CIT(A) confirming the action of the AO by making addition of 100% alleged bogus purchases while accepting the sales shown by the assessee. 3. Brief facts as noted by the AO is that the assessee had filed ROI declaring total income at Rs.3,99,174/- on 29.09.2009 for AY. 2009-10 which was processed u/s 143(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter “the Act”). Later, the AO received an information from the Maharashtra Sales Tax Department, Mumbai that certain persons were providing accommodation entries/bills to facilitate beneficiaries like assessee to book bogus purchases in the books without actual 2 A.Y. 2010-11 Mukesh Vinodkumar Singh purchases/delivery of goods. Based on the information, the assessee’s assessment for AY. 2009-10 was reopened u/s 147 of the Act; and the AO notes that the assessee had shown to have made purchases of goods from two such operators (i) M/s Om Corporation to the tune of Rs.3,78,658/- and (ii) M/s Rumeet Enterprises to the tune of Rs.4,31,288/- (total amount of Rs.8,09,946/-). When confronted by AO regarding this adverse information about the purchases from these parties, the assessee produced the following documents to substantiate the purchases and also the corresponding sales which is noted as under: - (i) Copies of bank statements for F.Y. 2008-09 (ii) Copies of bills raised by the above parties along with copies of ledger extracts as appearing in your books of accounts for F.Y. 2008-09. (iii) Transport/Lorry receipts, Octroi paid receipts (iv) Receipts of goods received in your office, godown and iste office or at factory site. (v) stock register maintained by you for FY 2008-09. (vi) Invoice, Challans, etc. and all other supporting documents or evidences available with you. (vii) Copy of VAT audit and sales tax return for the relevant year. 4. However, the AO didn’t accept the explanation given by assessee because according to AO, the notices issued u/s 133(6) of the Act to the aforesaid two parties were returned back as unserved by the postal authorities with a remark ‘Address left’. Therefore, according to the AO, the assessee failed to prove the genuineness of the purchase