RAM ENGINEERING CONCERN,HOWRA vs. ITO, WARD-48(2), KOLKATA

The assessee in the present case is a partnership firm, which is engaged in the business of trading. The return of income for the year under consideration was filed by it originally on 03.10.2013 declaring total income of Rs.1,12,725/-. On the basis of information received regarding the accommodation entries allegedly received by the assessee in the form of bogus purchase bills, the assessment for the year under consideration was reopened by the Assessing Officer and a notice under section 148 was issued by him to the assessee on 22.03.2018 after recording the reasons with prior approval from the concerned Commissioner. In pursuance of the said notice, assessment was completed by the Assessing Officer under section 143(3)/147 of the Act vide an order dated 18.12.2018 making an addition of Rs.40,44,480/- to the total income of the assessee on account of bogus purchases allegedly made from M/s. Durga Commodeal Pvt. Limited and M/s. Metal Alloy Syndicate.

Against the order passed by the Assessing Officer under section 143(3)/147 of the Act, an appeal was preferred by the assessee before the ld. CIT(Appeals) challenging the validity of the said assessment as well as disputing the addition of Rs.40,44,480/- made therein on account of alleged bogus purchases. The ld. CIT(Appeals) did not find merit in the submissions made on behalf of the assessee in support of the preliminary issue raised relating to the validity of the assessment made by the Assessing Officer under section 143(3)/147 of the Act and rejecting the same, he upheld the validity of the said assessment. As regards the addition of Rs.40,44,480/- made by the Assessing Officer on account of the alleged bogus purchases, the ld. CIT(Appeals) held that the entire amount of bogus purchases could not be treated as income of the assessee and it would be fair and reasonable to restrict the addition only to the extent of profit embedded in such bogus purchases. He accordingly estimated such profit at 10% and restricted the addition made by the Assessing Officer on this issue to Rs.4,04,484/-. Still aggrieved by the order of the ld. CIT(Appeals), the assessee has preferred this appeal before the Tribunal.

At the time of hearing fixed in this case today, none has appeared on behalf of the assessee. It is noted that there was similar non- compliance on the part of the assessee when this appeal was fixed for hearing before the Tribunal earlier on 17.12.2020, 28.01.2021, 18.02.2021, 08.04.2021 and 13.05.2021. It is also noted that there is a delay of 149 days on the part of the assessee in filing this appeal before the Tribunal and despite issuing defective notice on 01.09.2020, the assessee has not removed the said defect by filing an application seeking condonation of the said delay till date. Keeping in view all these facts of the case, I treat this appeal as barred by limitation and dismiss the same at the threshold.

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed. Order pronounced in the open Court on June 17, 2021.