What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal upheld the addition made by the Assessing Officer as the assessee failed to provide any evidence to substantiate the purchases. The appeal was decided ex parte due to the assessee's repeated non-appearance.

The assessee was found to have made bogus purchases amounting to Rs. 2,40,644/-. The assessee failed to prove the genuineness of these purchases before the Assessing Officer and the CIT(A).

What were the issues?

Whether the addition made on account of bogus purchases is justified when the assessee fails to provide evidence of genuineness.

Consep Engineering Pvt.Ltd, Navi… vs ITO | ITAT Pune 2019

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, PUNE BENCH “SMC”, PUNE

Before: SHRI R.S. SYAL

For Respondent: Shri M.K.Verma

PER R.S.SYAL, VP : This appeal by the assessee arises out of the order passed by the CIT(A)-2, Thane on 19-03-2018 in relation to the assessment year 2011-12.

The only issue raised in this appeal is against the confirmation of addition of Rs.2,40,644/-.

Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that the assessee was found to have made bogus purchases amounting to Rs.2,40,644/-. On being called upon to prove the genuineness of

2 ITA No.1073/PUN/2018 Consep Engineering Pvt. Ltd.,

the purchases, the assessee could not do so. The Assessing

Officer (AO) treated such purchases as bogus and made addition

for the same which came to be confirmed in the first appeal.

Aggrieved by such addition, the assessee has approached the

Tribunal.

I have heard the ld. DR and gone through the relevant

material on record. There is no appearance from the side of the

assessee. This appeal was originally fixed for hearing on

24-01-2019 on which date, there was no appearance on behalf of

the assessee. As such, the matter was adjourned to 28-02-2019.

Again, none appeared on behalf of the assessee and the appeal

was adjourned to 02-04-2019. The assessee again remained

unrepresented and the appeal was once again adjourned to 02-

05-2019. Today again, neither assessee has appeared nor any

request for adjournment has been moved. As such, I am

proceeding to dispose of the appeal ex parte qua the assessee on

merits.

It is noticed that the AO got information about the assessee

having made bogus purchases of Rs.2,40,644/-. In the absence

of the assessee substantiating the genuineness of the purchase

3 ITA No.1073/PUN/2018 Consep Engineering Pvt. Ltd.,

transactions, the addition was made. The position remained

same before the ld. CIT(A). As the assessee has not adduced

any evidence to the contrary before the Tribunal as well, I am

satisfied that no interference is warranted in the impugned order

on this score.

In the result, the appeal is dismissed.

Order pronounced in the Open Court on 03rd May, 2019.

Sd/- (R.S.SYAL) उपा�य� उपा�य�/ VICE PRESIDENT उपा�य� उपा�य�

पुणे Pune; �दनांक Dated : 03rd May, 2019 सतीश आदेश क� क� क� �ितिलिप क� �ितिलिप �ितिलिप अ�ेिषत �ितिलिप अ�ेिषत अ�ेिषत / Copy of the Order is forwarded to : अ�ेिषत आदेश आदेश आदेश अपीलाथ� / The Appellant; 1. ��यथ� / The Respondent; 2. आयकर आयु�(अपील) / 3. The CIT (Appeals)-2, Thane 4. The Pr. CIT-2, Thane िवभागीय �ितिनिध, आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, पुणे “SMC” / 5. DR ‘SMC’, ITAT, Pune; गाड� फाईल / Guard file. 6. // True copy // आदेशा आदेशा आदेशानुसार आदेशा नुसार नुसार/ BY ORDER, नुसार

// True Copy // Senior Private Secretary आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण ,पुणे / ITAT, Pune

ITA No.1073/PUN/2018 Consep Engineering Pvt. Ltd.,

Date 1. Draft dictated on 02-05-2019 Sr.PS 2. Draft placed before author 02-05-2019 Sr.PS 3. Draft proposed & placed JM before the second member 4. Draft discussed/approved JM by Second Member. 5. Approved Draft comes to Sr.PS the Sr.PS/PS 6. Kept for pronouncement on Sr.PS 7. Date of uploading order Sr.PS 8. File sent to the Bench Clerk Sr.PS 9. Date on which file goes to the Head Clerk 10. Date on which file goes to the A.R. 11. Date of dispatch of Order. *

CONSEP ENGINEERING PVT.LTD,NAVI MUMBAI vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD - 3, PANVEL

What did the Tribunal hold?

What were the facts?

What were the issues?

Recent GST High Court judgments