SIDDHIVINAYAK STEELS,THANE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 3(3), THANE, THANE

The facts of the case are that the assessee is engaged in the business of selling earth moving cranes and also repairing, reconditioning of cranes, manufacturing spares and trading of steels. The original return of income for the Assessment Year 2009-10 was filed on 30.09.2020, declaring total income of Rs.1,77,334/- and revised return of income was filed on 30.03.2013 of Rs.11,85,269/-. The assessment

Being aggrieved by the Assessment Order, the assesse filed appeal before the Ld. CIT(A). The Ld. CIT(A) dismissed the appeal of the assessee.

At the time of hearing, none appeared on behalf of the assessee despite giving several opportunities. On the last three occasions i.e. 16.06.2025, a notice was issued to the assessee, on 30.07.2025, the representative of the assesse Shri Akash Gupta, appeared and sought adjournment on 06.08.2025. The Ld. Counsel was directed to furnish copy of the purchase order to establish that assessee had offered additional profit on the alleged non genuine purchase. Thus, despite giving one-month time, the assessee’s authorized representative has not filed any details to that extent. On 09.09.2025, at the time of hearing at the first round when the matter was called for hearing and even at the bottom of the board when again it was called nobody appeared on behalf of the assesse. Therefore, we are taking up this matter as there was no adjournment application filed by the assessee or his representative. The approach of assesse appears to be casual in nature and therefore, we are taking up the appeal and considering the submissions made by the - 3– assessee before the Assessing Officer as well as before the CIT(A) which are quoted in the Assessment Order and the order of the CIT(A.

The Ld. DR submitted that the assessee is a partnership firm and from perusal of the records, it can be seen that from few parties from whom goods and materials were sourced were identified by Maharashtra Vat Department on its Official website as parties involved in bogus bills and hawala transactions. The Assessing Officer at the time of the assessment proceedings has called upon assessee to furnish addresses of these parties, copies of purchase bills, corresponding sales, consumption of goods, stock register and bank statements demonstrating payment having been made through cross Account payee cheque to the supplier. The Assessing Officer has categorically mentioned those parties in the Assessment order which are: Trimurti Enterprises, S.S Enterprise, Samarth Trading Company, MR Corporation. These are the parties from whom the assessee purchased certain goods/materials. While responding the show cause notices, the assessee vide letter dated 07.03.2014 has only given assurance that the assesse will submit purchase invoice, delivery challans showing confirmation of Accounts and Accounts statements highlighting the payment made by the Account payee cheques to the following companies: a. Trimurti Enterprises b. S.S Enterprises c. Padmavati Trading Company d. Mahavir Enterprises

We have heard both the parties and perused all the relevant material available on record. It is pertinent to note that the information from the Sales Tax Department which was received by the Income Tax Department categorically stated that this business activities either was closed down or were only involve in bogus sales invoices and issuing bogus bills. The Assessing Officer has categorically given said details in para 5.1 and has also given list of information from the Sales Tax in tabulated form for each 7 parties. This categorically reveals that purchases were in fact bogus. The Ld. DR pointed out that the confirmation from the parties cannot be treated as genuine merely. This contention is correct. The bank statement also cannot indicate that there was actual movement of goods. In fact, the assessee failed to establish that whether selling of earth moving crane and also repairing, reconditioning of cranes, manufacturing of spares and trading of steels were actually made by these parties. In fact, the assessee did not prove the actual purchase and therefore, the CIT(A) as well as the Assessing Officer has rightly made addition. In fact, the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in case of PCIT vs. Kanak Impex (India) in of 2021 order dated 03.03.2025 has categorically mentioned that the mere confirmation cannot suffice that there is actual transaction/purchase of sales between the parties. Thus, the assessee before the Assessing Officer

In the result, the appeal of the assesse is dismissed.