ITO 23(1)(6), MUMBAI vs. ANISH KANTILAL JAIN , MUMBAI

At the time of hearing, none appeared for assessee. However, the material on record was sufficient for disposal of the appeal. The Ld. DR pleaded for restoration of assessment as framed by Ld. AO. The assessee being resident individual is stated to be engaged in trading under proprietorship concern namely M/s Nimish Pharma Chem.

The case was reopened pursuant to receipt of certain information from Sales Tax Department, Maharashtra on the basis of which it was alleged that the assessee made suspicious purchases of Rs.16.42 Lacs from various entities. Though the assessee filed ledger extract as well as bank statements evidencing payment through banking channel, it failed to produce any of the supplier for confirmation of account. The Ld. AO worked out peak credit against these purchases for Rs.12.39 Lacs and added the same to the income of the assessee u/s 69C. 4. The Ld. CIT(A), after considering assessee’s submissions, concurred that sales turnover was not under doubt and therefore, the peak additions were not justified. Finally, relying upon the decision of Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in CIT V/s Simit P. Sheth (356 ITR 451), the estimation was made @12.5% against which the revenue is in further appeal before us. 5. After going through impugned order, we find that Ld. CIT(A) has clinched the issue in the right perspective. The sale was not under doubt and there could be no sale without actual purchase of material keeping in view the fact that the assessee was engaged in trading activities. Therefore, the estimation of 12.5% was quite fair & reasonable. Finding no reason to interfere in the impugned order, we dismiss the appeal.