ITO 20(2)(5), MUMBAI vs. PRAVEEN KUMAR GUPTA, MUMBAI

The present appeal has been preferred by the Revenue against the order dated 06.03.2019 of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [hereinafter referred to as the CIT(A)] relevant to assessment year 2011-12.

At the outset we would like to mention that neither assessee nor his authorized representative appeared to attend the hearing. Hence, after hearing the Ld. D.R. and going through the material available on records, we decide this appeal ex-parte.

The facts in brief are that assessee filed return of income on 21.09.2011 declaring a total income of Rs.3,47,560/- which was processed under section 143(1) of the Act. Thereafter, the case of the assessee was reopened under section 147 by issuing notice u/s 148 of the Act dated 18.12.2016 after the AO received information from the DGIT (Inv.) Mumbai that assessee has availed bogus purchases entries to the tune of Rs.16,00,59,300/- from M/s. Mairu Enterprises. The assessee filed during the course of assessment proceedings the bills, vouchers and other evidences corroborating the purchases, however, the AO was not satisfied with the genuineness of the purchases as the assessee has failed to prove the genuineness of the purchases as the assessee has failed to prove the genuineness of these purchases by furnishing third party evidences and added a sum of Rs.2,00,07,413/- being 7.5% of the alleged bogus purchases to the income of the assessee by framing the assessment vide order dated 07.11.2016 passed under section 143(3) read with section 147 of the Act.

In the appellate proceedings, the Ld. CIT(A) partly allowed the appeal of the assessee by following the decision of the co- ordinate bench of the Tribunal in assessee’s own case in A.Y. 2010-11 in wherein a GP rate of 4.6% has been applied thereby sustaining the addition of Rs.73,62,728/- as against Rs.2,00,07,413/- made by the AO. We observe that Ld. CIT(A) has followed the decision of the co-ordinate bench of 3 Shri Praveen Kumar Gupta the Tribunal in the assessee’s own case in A.Y. 2010-11 and therefore ,there is no scope for inference in the order passed by Ld. CIT(A). Consequently, we are inclined to dismiss the appeal of the Revenue by upholding the order of Ld. CIT(A).

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed.