Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, MUMBAI BENCH “SMC”, 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 Years (AY) 2010-11. 2. The brief facts of the case as emanating from records are: The assessee/respondent is in the business of undertaking mechanical works. The assessment for Assessment Year (AY) 2010-11 in the case of assessee was re- आअसं. 485/मुं/2020 (िन.व.2010-11 ) (A.Y. 2010-11) opened on the ground that the assessee has indulged in obtaining bogus purchase bills from various (six) hawala dealers during the period relevant to assessment year under appeal. During assessment proceedings, there was no representation from assessee’s side, despite repeated notices, therefore, the Assessing Officer (AO) invoked provisions of section 144 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’] and completed the assessment. Since, genuineness of the purchases and the dealers were not proved, the AO disallowed 50% of the total unproved purchases and made addition of Rs. 25,11,431/- . Against the assessment order dated 20.12.2017 passed under section 144 r.w. sec. 147 of the Act, the assessee filed appeal before the CIT(A). The CIT(A) after examining the facts and documents on record granted part relief to the assessee by restricting disallowance to 25% of the alleged bogus purchases. Now, the Revenue is in appeal against the relief granted by the CIT(A).
Sh. Sanjay J. Sethi representing the Department vehemently defended the assessment order. The ld. DR submitted that despite several notices, the assessee failed to appear before the AO, hence, the AO was constrained to complete assessment under section 144 of the Act. Even before the CIT(A), initially the assessee was non co-operative and did not comply with the notice. The assessee has failed to substantiate genuineness of the dealers and the purchases made from them. The ld. AR prayed for reversing the findings of CIT(A) and upholding the assessment order.
Submissions made by ld. DR heard, orders of the authorities below examined. Undisputedly, the assessee failed to prove authenticity of the dealers and purchases made from the said dealers. At the same time, it is