MR.PUNIT MALHOTRA,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 17(2)5, MUMBAI

The assessee has filed the present appeal against the order dated 05.06.2018 passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-28 (for short ‘the CIT(A), Mumbai, which pertains to the assessment year 2010-11, whereby the Ld. CIT(A) has dismissed the appeal filed by the assessee against the assessment order passed u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short the ‘Act’).

Brief facts of the case are that the assessee proprietor of M/s Punit Sales corporation, engaged in the business of trading, filed its return of income for the assessment year under consideration declaring total income of Rs.16,88,810/-. Since, it came to the notice of the AO that the assessee had shown purchases amounting to Rs. 6,31,966/- from a bogus entity declared by the Sales Tax Department, Maharashtra which used to provide accommodation bills without supplying any goods. Accordingly, the AO issued notice u/s 148 of the Act. Thereafter the AO issued notices u/s 143(2) and Assessment Year: 2010-11 142(1) of the Act. In response thereof, the authorized representative of the assessee appeared and filed the details. The assessee contended that the purchases were genuinely made from the aforesaid parties, however, the AO rejecting the contention of the assessee, treated the questioned purchases as bogus transaction and made addition of said amount to the income of the assessee. The assessee challenged the assessment order before the Ld. CIT (A). The Ld. CIT (A) after hearing the assessee dismissed the assessee’s appeal and confirmed the addition. Against the said findings, the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. 3. The assessee has challenged the impugned order passed by the Ld. CIT (A) on the following effective grounds:- “1. In the facts & circumstances of the case as well as in law the learned CIT (Appeals) erred in confirming the order passed by the learned assessing officer under section 143 (3) r.w.s. 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 2. In the facts & circumstances of the case as well as in law the learned CIT (Appeals) erred in not appreciating that the appellant had made genuine purchases in ordinary course of business and the same is supported by proper documents. 3. In the facts and circumstances of the case the learned CIT (Appeals) erred in confirming addition of Rs. 6,31,966/- on account of suppressed profits on bogus purchases being 100% of the purchases from the said party.”