ITO 27(1)(2), MUMBAI vs. ATUL V. LOTIA, MUMBAI

None has appeared for assessee and no valid adjournment application is on record. Left with no option, we proceed to dispose-off the appeal after hearing learned Departmental Representative who supported the additions made by Ld.AO. 3.1 Facts on record would reveal that the assessee being resident individual stated to be engaged in business under proprietorship concern namely M/s Atul Steels was assessed for year under consideration u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 147 on 12/02/2016 wherein the returned loss of Rs.33.42 Lacs filed by the assessee on 11/10/2010 was reduced to Rs.24.39 Lacs on account of addition of Rs.9.01 Lacs on account of alleged bogus purchases. 3.2 Pursuant to receipt of certain information from the DGIT (Inv.) wing, Mumbai/Sales Tax Department, Govt. of Maharashtra, it transpired that the assessee stood beneficiary of accommodation purchases bills aggregating to Rs.9.01 Lacs stated to be obtained from three entities, the details of which have already been extracted in para-2 of quantum assessment order. Accordingly, the case was reopened as per due process of law vide issuance of notice u/s 148 on 30/01/2015 which was followed by statutory notices u/s 142(1) wherein the assessee was directed to substantiate the stated purchase transactions by filing requisite details. Although the assessee defended the purchases, however, notices issued u/s 133(6) to confirm the transactions remained unserved and the assessee failed to produce any of the suppliers to confirm the transactions. Resultantly, the Atul V. Lotia Assessment Year-2010-11 stated purchases were disallowed and added to the income of the assessee. 4. Aggrieved, the assessee contested the stand of the Ld. Assessing Officer before learned first appellate authority vide impugned order dated 05/07/2018 on legal grounds as well as on merits. The legal ground raised