ITO-12(3)(1), MUMBAI., AAYAKAR BHAVAN vs. MYVISION ADVERTISING PRIVATE LIMITED, MUMBAI
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
“SMC” BENCH MUMBAI
HON’BLE SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN, JUDICIAL MEMBER
ITO – 12(3)(1)
Aayakar Bhavan
Room No. 145, 1st floor,
MK Marg, Mumbai –
400020. Vs.
Myvision Advertising
Pvt Ltd.,
315/2514 Motilal
Nagar, Goregaon (W),
Mumbai – 400090. PAN/GIR No. AAGCM3691Q
(Applicant)
(Respondent)
Assessee by None
Revenue by Shri Kiran Unavekar, Sr. DR
Date of Hearing
10.03.2025
Date of Pronouncement
11.03.2025
आदेश / ORDER
PER SANDEEP GOSAIN, JM:
The present appeal has been filed by the revenue challenging the impugned order 24.07.2024 passed u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘the Act’), by the National
Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi / CIT(A), for the A.Y 2011-
12. 2. At the time of hearing none appeared on behalf of the assessee even after repeated calls. On perusal of the case file I found that notices were repeatedly sent to the assessee on the said address supplied by the assessee to 2
Myvision Advertising Pvt Ltd, Mumbai the department and even e-mail was also sent with regard to the pendency of the present appeal. Even in spite of that neither the assessee not his representative appeared or moved any application for seeking adjournment which shows that assessee is not interested in pursuing the present appeal, therefore proceeded ex-parte. On the other hand, Ld. DR present in the court is ready with arguments.
Therefore, after hearing the Ld. DR and perusal of the court file I noticed that Ld. CIT(A) had restricted the additions on account of bogus purchases as against the additions made by the AO. In this regard considering the arguments of Ld. DR and taking into consideration the undisputed fact that the assessee had made bogus purchases and while relying upon the latest decision of Hon’ble Juri ictional High Court in the case of Pr. CIT Vs. Kanak Impex (India) Ltd in Income tax appeal No. 791 of 2021. Wherein it has been held that “where no explanation of the source of the expenditure incurred on account of purchases has been proved, then there is no justification ine stimating the profit rate”
Respectfully following the above decision, I reverse the order of Ld. CIT(A) and restore the order of AO by holding that assessee could not prove the genuineness of the 3 Myvision Advertising Pvt Ltd, Mumbai purchases therefore could not discharge the onus cast upon him to prove the genuineness of the purchase, including the source. Since the assessee could not offer any explanation regarding the source of expenditure incurred on account of making purchase therefore in my view AO was justified in making additions and Ld. CIT(A) was not justified in estimating the profit ratio and thereby impliedly granting deduction of such unexpenditure which is contrary to the express provision of the Act. Therefore present appeal filed by the revenue is allowed in view of our above discussion.
Order pronounced in the open court on 11.03.2025. (SANDEEP GOSAIN)
JUDICIAL MEMBER
Mumbai, Dated 11/03/2025
KRK, PS
आदेश की ितिलिप अेिषत/Copy of the Order forwarded to :
1. अपीलाथ / The Appellant
2. थ / The Respondent.
3. संबंिधत आयकर आयु / The CIT(A)
4. आयकर आयु(अपील) / Concerned CIT
5. िवभागीय ितिनिध, आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, मुबई / DR, ITAT, Mumbai
6. गाड फाईल / Guard file.
आदेशानुसार/ BY ORDER,
सािपत ित ////
4
Myvision Advertising Pvt Ltd, Mumbai
उप/सहायक पंजीकार ( Asst.