SHRI. GIRDHARILA C. PRAJAPATI,MUMBAI vs. CIT(APPEAL)-30, MUMBAI

Aforesaid appeal by assessee for Assessment Year [in short referred to as ‘AY’] 2010-11 contest the order of Ld. Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals)-30, Mumbai, [in short referred to as ‘CIT(A)’], Appeal No. CIT-30/19(1)(3)/739/16-17 dated 10/08/2018 on the ground that gross profit ratio has wrongly been estimated by Ld. CIT(A).

The registry has noted a delay of approx. 88 days in filing of appeal, the condonation of which has been sought by assessee vide condonation petition dated 10/01/2019 which is supported by affidavit of the assessee. It has been submitted that the assessee could not attend office due to ill-health of the father. Though Ld. DR opposed condonation of delay, however, after going through condonation petition, we are inclined to condone the delay and proceed for disposal of appeal on merits. 4.1 The material facts are that the assessee is stated to be engaged in trading of ferrous and non-ferrous metals. An assessment was framed for the year u/s. 143(3) r.w.s. 147 on 28/03/2016. The assessment was so framed pursuant to receipt of certain information from Sales Tax Department that the assessee procured accommodation purchase bills of Rs.67.32 Lacs from 9 parties as detailed in para-2 of the assessment order. Accordingly notice u/s 148 was issued on 05/11/2014 which was followed by statutory notices u/s 143(2) & 142(1) wherein the assessee was directed to substantiate these purchase transactions. 4.2 Though the assessee filed documentary evidences but it failed to produce any of the entities. The Ld.AO also noted that the assessee could not file vital documents such as delivery challans, transport receipts, goods inwards register etc. The payments through banking channels would not be sacrosanct. Finally, the additions were estimated at 12.5% of these purchases and added to the income of the assessee.

After careful consideration of factual matrix, we find that lower authorities have clinched the issue in the correct perspective and our interference, in not called for, in any manner. No new material has been placed before us. It was a fit case to estimate certain additions against suspicious purchases. Consequently, we dismiss this appeal.

The appeal stands dismissed.