ITO, 27(1)(1), MUMBAI vs. ABDULLAH ABDULKARIM SHAIKH, MUMBAI

The present appeal has been preferred by the Revenue against the order dated 28.11.2018 of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [hereinafter referred to as the CIT(A)] relevant to assessment year 2009-10.

During the course of hearing, neither assessee nor his authorized representative appeared to attend the hearing nor any application seeking adjournment was filed. Therefore, we are disposing off the appeal after hearing the Ld. D.R. and going through the facts of the case.

The facts in brief are that the assessee filed return of income under section 139(1) of the Act on 29.09.2009 declaring an income of Rs.2,00,681/-. Thereafter the case of the assessee was reopened under section 147 of the Act by issuing notice under section 148 dated 30.03.2014 after AO received information from DGIT (Investigation), Mumbai and Sales Tax Department, Government of Maharashtra that assessee is beneficiary of hawala purchase entries. Accordingly, the AO called upon the assessee to prove the genuineness of the said purchases. The assessee filed copies of purchase bills, vouchers, payment details and delivery challans etc. However, AO was not satisfied with the reply of the assessee and added the entire bogus purchases of Rs.6,10,679/- to the income of the assessee by holding that assessee has not produced the consumption of the alleged material purchased in the manufacturing process.

In the appellate proceedings, Ld. CIT(A) partly allowed the appeal of the assessee by sustaining the addition @ 27.46% being average GP of the last three years by following the decision of Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in the case of CIT vs. Simit P. Sheth 356 ITR 451 (Gujarat – HC).

After hearing the ld. DR and perusing the material on record and impugned order, we note that the Ld. CIT(A) has

We also note that the assessee has not challenged the order of Ld. CIT(A) wherein the Ld. CIT(A) has partly sustained the addition to 27.46%. Under these circumstances, we are inclined to dismiss the Revenue’s appeal by upholding the order of Ld. CIT(A).

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