ACIT CIRCLE-22(1), MUMBAI vs. CHANDRAPRAKASH SHARMA HUF, MUMBAI

When the appeal was called for hearing, no one was present on behalf of the assessee. Considering the nature of dispute, I proceed to dispose of the appeal ex–parte qua the assessee after hearing the 2 Chandraprakash Sharma (HUF)

The only dispute is confined to partial relief granted by the learned Commissioner (Appeals) in the matter of addition made on account of non–genuine purchases.

Brief facts are, the assessee a Hindu Undivided Family (HUF) is engaged in the business of civil and labour contractor. For the assessment year under dispute, the assessee filed its return of income on 25th September 2010 declaring income of ` 20,15,087. Assessment in case of the assessee was originally completed under section 143(3) of the Act. Subsequently, the Assessing Officer received information from the Sales Tax Department through the Investigation Wing indicating that the assessee is a beneficiary of accommodation bills provided by certain parties towards purchases worth ` 84,46,199. On the basis of such information the Assessing Officer re–opened the assessment under section 147 of the Act. In course of assessment proceedings, the Assessing Officer called upon the assessee to furnish evidence to prove the purchases. In response, the assessee furnished certain documentary evidences to support its claim that purchases are genuine. However, the Assessing Officer was not convinced with the assessee’s claim. Further, as observed by the Assessing Officer,

After considering the submissions of the assessee in the context of the facts and material on record, learned Commissioner (Appeals) restricted the disallowance to ` 4,00,000.

I have considered the submissions of the learned Departmental Representative and perused the material on record. It is evident from the assessment order, in the course of assessment proceedings the assessee had furnished the month wise quantitative details of sales and purchases, invoices and delivery challans, ledger account, etc. It further appears that the primary reasons for which the Assessing Officer did not accept the purchases as genuine is, the notices issued under section 133(6) of the Act returned back un–served and further, the assessee failed to produce the concerned parties. However, it is a fact on record that the Assessing Officer was convinced that the goods representing the disputed purchases have entered the stock of the assessee and the assessee has made the corresponding

In the result, appeal is dismissed. Order pronounced in the open court on 24.02.2021