ITO 27(1)(4), MUMBAI vs. SHRI. DILIP G KACHHARA, MUMBAI

ORDER PER VIKAS AWASTHY, J.M: This appeal by the Revenue is directed against the order of Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-24, Mumbai [hereinafter referred to as ‘the CIT(A)’] ' dated 23.10.2019 for the Assessment Year (AY) 2009-10. 2. The brief facts of the case as emanating from records are: The assessee is engaged in trading of building material. On the basis of information received आअसं. 494/मुं/2020 (िन.व.2009-10) (A.Y. 2009-10) from Investigation wing of the Department, the assessment for AY 2009-10 in the case of assessee was re-opened. As per the information received, the assessee had obtained accommodation entries amounting to Rs. 2,26,019/- from M/s Mahadeshpura Enterprises, a hawala operator, declared by the Sales Tax Department, Government of Maharashtra. The Assessing Officer (AO) had issued notice under section 148 and thereafter notice under section 142(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’] to the assessee. The assessee did not respond to the said notices, hence, the AO completed the assessment under section 144 of the Act. During assessment proceeding, the assessee failed to discharge its onus in proving genuineness of the dealer and the purchases made from the said dealer. The AO estimated GP @ 25% on bogus purchases and made addition of Rs. 80,700/-. Against the assessment order dated 19.03.2015 passed under section 143(3) read with section 147 of the Act. The assessee filed appeal before the CIT(A). The CIT(A) after examining the facts granted part relief to the assessee by estimating GP @ 10% on bogus purchases. Now, the Revenue is in appeal against the order of CIT(A).