SRI. MURLI MANOHAR AGARWAL,MUMBAI vs. ITO-19(2)(3), MUMBAI

आयकरअपील सं./ (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2008-09) & आयकरअपील सं./ (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2011-12) Shri Murli Manohar Aggarwal Income tax Officer-19(2)(3) C/o. AVI Gems Matru Mandir बनाम/ DC-6210, Bharat Diamond Bourse Mumbai. Vs. Bandra Kurla Complex Mumbai-400 051. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./PAN/GIR No. AABPA-4295-N (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" / Respondent) : Assessee by : Shri Niraj Punamiya-Ld.AR Revenue by : Ms. Jyoti Lakshmi Nayak-Ld. DR सुनवाई की तारीख/ : 04/02/2020 Date of Hearing घोषणा की तारीख / : 05/02/2020 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’] 2008-09 and 2011-12 contest separate orders of learned first appellate authority. Since issues are common i.e. estimated additions on account of alleged bogus purchases, the appeals were heard together and are now being disposed-off by way of this ITA No.4575-76/Mum/2018 Shri Murli Manohar Agarwal Assessment Years :2008-09 & 2011-12 consolidated order for the sake of convenience and brevity. The Ld. Authorized Representative for Assessee (AR) submitted that legal grounds challenging the validity of reassessment proceedings are not being pressed under both the appeals. In the above background, we first take up appeal for AY 2008-09. We have carefully heard the rival submissions and perused relevant material on record. Our adjudication to the subject matter of appeals would be as given in succeeding paragraphs. 2.1 Briefly stated the assessee being resident individual stated to be engaged in trading of diamonds was assessed for year under consideration u/s143(3) r.w.s. 147 on 29/03/2016 wherein the income of the assessee was determined at Rs.102.50 Lacs after certain additions as against returned income of Rs.98.52 Lacs filed by the assessee on 30/09/2008 which was processed u/s 143(1). 2.2 Pursuant to receipt of certain information that the assessee availed accommodation entries from Bhanwarlal Group Companies, the case was reopened as per due process of law vide issuance of notice u/s 148 on 17/03/2015 which was followed by statutory notices wherein the assessee was directed to file requisite details and substantiate purchase transactions. 2.3 It transpired that the assessee reflected aggregate purchases of Rs.37.25 Lacs from two group entities and armed with investigation carried out in the case of Bhanwarlal Group Companies, Ld. AO to proceeded to treat these purchases as non-genuine purchases. After considering assessee’s submissions and facts on record, Ld.AO rejected