GANPATRAJ NEMAL JAIN,MUMBAI vs. ITO 19 (1)(3), MUMBAI

In this appeal the assessee is aggrieved for the addition of 12.5% made by the A.O in respect of alleged bogus purchases and also challenged validity of reopening. . Ganpatraj Nemal Jain, Mumbai. - 2 - 3. I have considered the rival contentions and I found that in this case, the return of income for the A.Y 2009-10 was filed on 04.09.2009 declaring total income of Rs. 1,91,410/-. The return was processed u/s 143(1) of the Act. Subsequently, the AO received information from the DGIT (INV), Mumbai who in turn received information from the sales tax department, Mumbai about some hawala entry providers. The information was that the sales tax department has exercised due diligence which revealed that the assessee is involved in taking accommodation entries of bogus purchases from ten parties amounting to Rs. 63,35,118/-.

After making full enquiries the AO reached to the conclusion that assessee has taken accommodation bill for purchases without having delivery. He computed profit element on such purchase at 12.5% and added a sum of Rs. 7,91,890/- in assessee’s income. By the impugned order . Ganpatraj Nemal Jain, Mumbai. - 3 - the CIT(A) further given relief to the extent of gross profit already declared by the assessee on such bogus transactions. The assessee is in further appeal before us.

I have considered rival contentions and found that on the basis of proper information from DGIT, the A.O recorded the reasons to believe that income to the tune of bogus purchases has escaped assessment. Thereafter, giving due opportunity to the assessee the AO reopened assessment by issue of notice u/s 148 of the Act. I do not find any infirmity in the order of reopening the assessment. So far as merit of addition is confirmed, I found that both AO and CIT(A) had dealt with the issue and after applying various judicial pronouncements the CIT(A) has further given a relief to the extent of gross profit already declared by the assessee on this alleged purchases. The detailed findings so recorded by the lower authorities have not been controverted by the Ld. AR, by brining any positive matter . Ganpatraj Nemal Jain, Mumbai. - 4 - on record. Accordingly, I do not find any reason to interfere in the order of CIT(A) for upholding addition of GP at 12.50% and further giving relief of GP already declared by the assessee.

In the result the appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed.

This Order pronounced in Open Court on 13/11/2019 Sd/- ( R.C. SHARMA ) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Mumbai, Dated 13/11/2019 KRK, PS आदेश की प्रनिलऱपि अग्रेपषि/Copy of the Order forwarded to : अऩीराथी / The Appellant 1. प्रत्मथी / The Respondent. 2. संफंधधत आमकय आमुक्त / The CIT(A) 3. आमकय आमुक्त(अऩीर) / Concerned CIT 4. ववबागीम प्रतततनधध, आमकय अऩीरीम अधधकयण, अहभदाफाद / DR, ITAT, Mumbai 5. गार्ड पाईर / Guard file. 6. आदेशधिुसधर/ BY ORDER, सत्मावऩत प्रतत //True Copy// 1. उि/सहधयक िंजीकधर ( Asst. Registrar) आयकर अिीऱीय अधर्करण, अहमदधबधद / ITAT, Mumbai . Ganpatraj Nemal Jain, Mumbai. - 5 -