RAMESH H. BHANSALI,MUMBAI vs. ITO 19(3)(1),

Aforesaid matter is a recalled matter vide MA No.275/Mum/2020 order dated 01/02/2021. This appeal by assessee for Assessment Year 2009-10 contest the order of ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)- 30, Mumbai [in short CIT(A) ] order dated 24/02/2017, which has restricted addition on account of alleged bogus purchases to the extent of 6.5%. 2.1 We have carefully heard the arguments urged before us. The material facts are that the assessee being resident individual stated to be engaged in trading of ferrous & non-ferrous metals was assessed for the year u/s. 143(3) r.w.s. 147 on 13/03/2015. The assessment was so framed pursuant to receipt of certain information from Sales Tax Department that the assessee procured accommodation purchase bills aggregating to Rs.204.37 Lacs from 23 entities as detailed in the assessment order. Accordingly, notice u/s 148 was issued on 28/02/2014 which was followed by statutory notices u/s. 143(2) and 142(1) calling requisite information from assessee with respect to purchases. 2.2 Though the assessee filed certain documentary evidences, however, notices issued u/s. 133(6) did not elicit satisfactory response. After considering factual matrix, Ld. AO applying the ratio of Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in CIT vs. Simit P. Sheth [356 ITR 451], estimated additions against these purchases @12.5%. 3. The Ld. CIT(A), keeping in view the lower rate of VAT on metals, directed Ld. AO to restrict the addition to the extent of 6.5%. Still aggrieved, the assessee is in further appeal before us. 4. After going through factual matrix, we find that it was a fit case to make estimated additions in the hands of the assessee. The estimation of 12.5% has already been substantially reduced to 6.5% by Ld. CIT(A) which was quite fair and reasonable. Finding no reason to interfere in the impugned order, we dismiss the appeal. 5. The appeal stands dismissed. Order pronounced in the open court on16th March, 2021.