SECURITY VISION,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER 21(3)(2), MUMBAI

At the time of hearing of appeal, though none appeared for assessee, but the material on record was sufficient for disposal of appeal. The Ld. Sr. DR pleaded for dismissal of appeal justifying the estimations made by lower authorities on account of alleged bogus purchases.

The material facts are that the assessee being resident firm stated to be engaged in trading of security cameras was assessed for the year under consideration u/s 143(3) on 30/03/2016. During assessment proceedings, upon verification of purchases made by the assessee, it transpired that the assessee could not conclusively substantiate aggregate purchases of Rs.48.92 Lacs stated to be made from 10 parties as detailed in para 4.3 of the assessment order. The notices issued u/s 133(6) did not elicit satisfactory response. The assessee could merely furnish ledger accounts and purchase invoices but could not produce any of these suppliers. Consequently, Ld. AO estimated an addition of 12.5% against these purchases. The said estimation, upon confirmation by Ld. CIT(A), is under challenge before us. 3. After going through the orders of lower authorities, we find that the impugned order is reasoned one and a judicious order. The circumstances as noted by lower authorities made it a fit case for estimating additions on account of suspicious purchases since the sales were not doubted and the assessee was in possession of primary purchase documents. However, it could not substantiate the purchases conclusively. 4. Resultantly, the appeal stands dismissed.