ITO -19(3)(1), MUMBAI vs. RAMESH DHAWALCHAND JAIN, MUMBAI

आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण “एक-सदस्य मामला” न्यायपीठ म ुंबई में। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “SMC” BENCH, MUMBAI माननीय श्री शक्तिजीत दे, न्याययक सदस्य एवुं माननीय श्री मनोज कुमार अग्रवाल ,लेखा सदस्य के समक्ष। BEFORE HON’BLE SHRI SAKTIJIT DEY, JM AND HON’BLE SHRI MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL, AM (Hearing Through Video Conferencing Mode) आयकरअपील सं./ (धििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2009-10) ITO-19(3)(1) Shri Ramesh Dhawalchand Jain बिाम/ 89,2nd Pathan Street Matru Mandir 2nd Floor, Room No.202 5th Kumbharwada Vs. Tardeo Road, Mumbai – 400 007. Mumbai – 400 004. स्थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./PAN/GIR No.ABVPJ-7944-C (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) : & आयकरअपील सं./ (धििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2009-10) Shri Ramesh Dhawalchand Jain ITO-19(3)(1) 89,2nd Pathan Street बिाम/ Matru Mandir, 2nd Floor 5th Kumbharwada Room No.202,Tardeo Road Vs. Mumbai – 400 004. Mumbai – 400 007. स्थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./PAN/GIR No.ABVPJ-7944-C (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) : Assessee by : Shri Rajiv Khandelwal-Ld. Sr. AR Revenue by : Ms. Smita Verma – Ld. Sr. DR सुनवाई की तारीख/ : 22/03/2021 Date of Hearing घोषणा की तारीख / : 05/04/2021 Date of Pronouncement आदेश / O R D E R Per Manoj Kumar Aggarwal (Accountant Member)

have not been pressed before us.

2. We have carefully heard the rival arguments and perused relevant material on record. Our adjudication to the subject matter of appeal would be as given in succeeding paragraphs.

3. The material facts are that the assessee being resident individual stated to be engaged in trading of metals under proprietorship concern namely M/s Ramesh Steel Coproration was assessed for the year under consideration u/s. 144 r.w.s. 147 on 09/03/2015. The assessment was so framed pursuant to receipt of certain information from investigation wing that the assessee procured bogus purchase bills for Rs.32.30 Lacs from two entities as detailed in the assessment order. Accordingly, notice u/s 148 was issued on 07/03/2014 which remained un-responded to by the assessee. Consequently, the purchases were disallowed and added back to assessee’s income while framing the assessment.

4. Before Ld. CIT(A), the assessee filed documentary evidences in support of purchases and submitted that the purchased goods were ultimately sold to various customers. The attention was drawn to the fact that the assessee had reflected gross profit rate of 6% during the year on turnover of Rs.298.22 Lacs.

5. The Ld. CIT(A), after considering assessee’s submissions and factual matrix, opined that the assessee miserably failed to lead evidence. Going by the ratio of decision of Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in Bholanath Polyfabs Pvt. Ltd. (355 ITR 290) as well as Simit P.Sheth (356 ITR 451), Ld. CIT(A) estimated additions of 12.5% against these purchases. The said adjudication has given rise to cross-appeals before us.

6. Upon careful consideration of factual matrix, we find that the assessee was engaged in trading activity and there could be no sale without actual purchase of goods. The assessee submitted adequate documentary evidences to establish genuineness of purchases to certain extent. However, the purchases could not be proved conclusively and the burden casted upon assessee remained un-discharged. Hence, the factual matrix made it a fit case to make estimated additions in the hands of the assessee, which Ld. CIT(A) has rightly done so. Therefore, we concur with the approach of Ld. CIT(A) in estimating the additions and find no reason to interfere in the impugned order, in this regard.

Sd/- Sd/- (Saktijit Dey) (Manoj Kumar Aggarwal) न्याययक सदस्य / Judicial Member लेखा सदस्य / Accountant Member मुंबई Mumbai; यदनांक Dated : 05.04.2021 Sr.PS, Jaisy Varghese आदेशकीप्रधिधलधपअग्रेधर्ि/Copy of the Order forwarded to : 1. अपीलाथी/ The Appellant 2. प्रत्यथी/ The Respondent 3. आयकरआयुि(अपील) / The CIT(A) 4. आयकरआयुि/ CIT– concerned 5. यवभागीयप्रयतयनयध, आयकरअपीलीयअयधकरण, मुंबई/ DR, ITAT, Mumbai 6. गार्डफाईल / Guard File आदेशाि सार/ BY ORDER,