No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “D” BENCH, MUMBAI
Before: HON’BLE SHRI MAHAVIR SINGH, VP & HON’BLE SHRI MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL, AM
आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण “डी” "ायपीठ मुंबई म"। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “D” BENCH, MUMBAI माननीय "ी महावीर िसंह, उपा"" एवं माननीय "ी मनोज कुमार अ"वाल ,लेखा सद" के सम"। BEFORE HON’BLE SHRI MAHAVIR SINGH, VP AND HON’BLE SHRI MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL, AM (Hearing Through Video Conferencing Mode) आयकर अपील सं./ (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2010-11) ITO-24(1)(5) Shri Devdas Manjayya Sehrugar बनाम/ 607, Piramal Chambers Gala No.9, Ark Ind. Premises CSL Jeejeebhoy Lane, Lalbaug Makwana Road, Andheri East Vs. Mumbai – 400 012 Mumbai – 400 059 PAN No. : AAYPS-4717-Q (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" / Respondent) : Assessee by : None Revenue by : Shri Rajendra Joshi– Ld. Sr. DR सुनवाई की तारीख/ : 25/05/2021 Date of Hearing घोषणा की तारीख / : 01/06/2021 Date of Pronouncement आदेश / O R D E R Manoj Kumar Aggarwal (Accountant Member)
Aforesaid appeal by revenue for Assessment year [AY in short] 2010-11 contest the order of Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-36, Mumbai [in short CIT(A) ] dated 26/08/2019 which has provided certain relief to the assessee on account of alleged bogus purchases.
Though none appeared for assessee, however, material on record was sufficient for disposal of the appeal. The Ld. DR pleaded for restoration of assessment framed by Ld. AO. 3.1 The material facts are that the assessee being resident individual stated to be engaged in manufacturing of engineering goods consisting of molds, dies etc. was assessed for the year under consideration u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 147 on 26/02/2016. The original return filed by assessee was processed u/s 143(1). However, pursuant to receipt of certain information from DGIT (Inv.) / Sales Tax Department, Mumbai, it transpired that the assessee made alleged bogus purchases of Rs.52.00 Lacs from nine entities as detailed in the assessment order. Accordingly, the case was reopened as per due process of law and the assessee was required to file requisite details to substantiate the purchases. 3.2 In support of purchases, the assessee furnished copies of purchase bills, monthly details of sale & purchase along with bank statements evidencing payment through banking channels. However, notices issued u/s 133(6) did not elicit satisfactory response. The assessee could not produce any of the suppliers for confirmation of transactions. The Ld. AO, after considering entire factual matrix as well as in the background of various judicial pronouncements, made aggregate disallowance of Rs.41.34 Lacs which has been worked out in para-13 of the order. The disallowance was made @100% against 8 parties whereas the disallowance against one party was estimated @25%. In the alternative, Ld. AO proposed disallowance of Rs.34.21 Lacs u/s 40(A)(3) which represent purchases made from seven entities since the assessee would have made payment out of sources best known to him.