Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “D” BENCH, MUMBAI
Before: HON’BLE SHRI SAKTIJIT DEY, JM & SHRI HON’BLE MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL, AM
आयकरअपील सं./ (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2007-08) & आयकरअपील सं./ (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2009-10) Say India Jewellers Pvt. Ltd. M/s DCIT-13(2)(1) Unit No. 701, Block No. I Aaykar Bhawan बनाम/ SEEPZ++, SEZ M.K.Road Vs. MIDC, Andheri (East) Mumbai- 400020 Mumbai- 400 096. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./PAN/GIR No. AAACM-7171-K (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" / Respondent) : Assessee by : None Revenue by : Ms. Jyothilakshmi Nayak-Ld. DR सुनवाई की तारीख/ : 24/02/2020 Date of Hearing घोषणा की तारीख / : 11/03/2020 Date of Pronouncement आदेश / O R D E R Manoj Kumar Aggarwal (Accountant Member) 1. Aforesaid appeals by assessee for Assessment Years [in short referred to as ‘AY’] 2007-08 & 2009-10 contest separate orders of learned first appellate authority qua confirmation of certain addition on account of alleged bogus purchases. Since the grievance is common for both years, the appeals were heard together and are now being Say India Jewellers Private Limited Assessment Years: 2007-08 & 2009-10 disposed-off by way of this common order for the sake of convenience and brevity.
None has appeared for assessee and no valid adjournment application has been placed on record. Hence, keeping in view the nature of additions, the matter was proceeded with ex-parte qua the assessee. The Ld. DR pointed out that revenue’s cross-appeal for AY 2007-08 has already been dismissed by the Tribunal wherein the estimation made by Ld. CIT(A) has been held to be fair and reasonable. After due consideration, our adjudication to the subject matter of appeal would be as given in succeeding paragraphs. 3.1 Briefly stated the assessee being resident corporate assessee stated to be engaged in the business of Jewellery was assessed u/s 143(3) r.w.s. on 17/03/2015 wherein it was saddled with additions of Rs.80.69 Lacs on account of unexplained purchases. The regular assessment was framed u/s 143(3) on 12/11/2009 which was reopened as per due process of law by issuance of notice u/s 148 on 25/03/2014. The reassessment proceedings were triggered upon receipt of certain information from investigation wing of the department that the assessee obtained accommodation entries from Shri Rajendra Jain group as well as from Shri Praveen Jain Group. The aggregate of suspicious purchases so made from 4 entities was Rs.80.69 Lacs, the details of which have already been extracted in the assessment order. 3.2 Although the assessee defended the purchases, but rejecting the same in the light of findings of investigation team, Ld. AO disallowed these purchases and added the same to the income of the assessee.
Say India Jewellers Private Limited Assessment Years: 2007-08 & 2009-10 4.1 Before Ld. CIT(A), the assessee assailed reassessment proceedings on legal ground but the same were rejected in view of the fact that specific information was received by Ld. AO regarding bogus bills. 4.2 On merits, Ld. CIT(A) observed that corresponding sales was reflected by the assessee against the purchases so made and hence the argument that there could ne no sales without purchases could not be brushed aside easily. Therefore, the additions were estimated at 15% of these purchases which restricted the impugned additions to Rs.12.10 Lacs. Aggrieved, the assessee is in further appeal before us.
Before us, the assessee has assailed reassessment proceedings which would stand rejected since Ld. AO was clinched with specific information subsequent to completion of assessment proceedings that indicated possible escapement of income in the hands of the assessee. At that stage, nothing more was required and Ld. AO, upon formation of reasonable belief, reopened the assessment. Therefore, no infirmity could be found, in this regard, in the impugned order.
So far as the estimation of additions are concerned, we find that the revenue was also under appeal against the order of Ld. CIT(A) before this Tribunal which was disposed-off vide order dated 08/11/2017 (which has been authored by one of us). Upon perusal of the same, we find that, vide para-5 of the order, the co-ordination bench has held the estimation made by Ld. CIT(A) to be fair and reasonable. Therefore, following the same, we dismiss the appeal.