KURUVILLA ALEXANDER,,PUNE vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD - 8(1),, PUNE

The assessee has raised the following ground of appeal:-

The present appeal has been filed by the assessee after delay of eight days and the assessee has filed an application for condonation of delay. In view of the facts and circumstances, we find merit in the plea of assessee and the delay in filing the appeal late by eight days is condoned

Briefly, in the facts of the case, the assessee was engaged in the business of manufacturing of various types of Precision Tools and Processing charges thereof. The Assessing Officer received information from Sales Tax Department, Maharashtra in respect of hawala dealers. The information received also contains the details of beneficiaries of such bogus bills. The persons who have provided entries to various beneficiaries have also filed affidavits before the Sales Tax Department stating therein that they have merely provided entries to these beneficiaries and that no goods as mentioned in the purchase bills were issued by them. As per information received, the assessee had also obtained bogus purchase bills from the entry provider. Notice under section 148 of the Act has been issued to the assessee after recording reasons for reopening of the assessment. The assessee requested that the original return of income filed by the assessee may be treated as return filed in response to notice under section 148 of the Act. In response to the notice issued, Shri Sanjay Vaidya, C.A. and AR of the assessee attended from time to time and submitted the details as called for from time to time. During the course of scrutiny proceedings, the assessee vide his letter dated 12.08.2014 stated as under:-

In view of assessee’s offer, disallowance of ₹ 1,21,501/- was made to the total income of assessee on account of bogus purchases from hawala dealers.

The CIT(A) dismissed the appeal of assessee, in view of assessee having admitted to the aforesaid addition.

The assessee is in appeal against the order of CIT(A).

The learned Authorized Representative for the assessee before us could not point out any withdrawal made before the Assessing Officer and in view of agreement of assessee itself, there is no question of raising any issue before the Tribunal. Hence, the ground of appeal raised by assessee is dismissed.

In the result, the appeal of assessee is dismissed.