MANJU SAWALCHAND JAIN,MUMBAI vs. ITO 19(2)(3), MUMBAI

O R D E R

PER AMARJIT SINGH, JM:

1. That on the facts of the case and in law the ld. CIT(A) has erred in upholding the validity of the reassessment proceeding initiated u/s 147 by issue of notice u/s 148 on wrong facts and in unlawful manner.

2. That the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in retaining the part adhoc disallowance at Rs.8,84,851/- out of disallowance made by the Ld. AO at Rs.16,31,091/- out of the alleged hawala purchases of Rs.1,30,48,733/-. In view of the same the appellant prays that the part disallowance retained by Ld. CIT(A) may be deleted. That both the appeal grounds are independent grounds & without prejudice to each other.

3. Your appellant keeps the right to add, amend or alter any of the above grounds on or before hearing.”

4. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee filed his return of income on 10.09.2010 declaring total income to the tune of Rs.9,21,772/- for the A.Y.2010-11. The case of the assessee was reopened u/s 148 of the Act by issuance of notice dated 23.03.2016. Thereafter, notices u/s 143(2) & 142(1) of the Act were issued and served upon the assessee. The reasons for reopening are that the assessee has taken the accommodation entries of bogus purchase in sum of Rs.1,30,48,733/- from the following parties.

Name of the Party Amount Anand Deep Metal 1,30,48,733 Total 1,30,48,733/- 5. After the reply of the notice, the AO restricted the addition to the extent of 12.5% of the bogus purchase in sum of Rs.1,30,48,733/- which comes to the tune of Rs.16,31,091/- The total income of the assessee was A.Y. 2009-10 & 2010-11 assessed to the tune of Rs.25,52,860/-. Feeling aggrieved, the assessee filed an appeal before the CIT(A) who partly allowed the claim of the assessee but the assessee was not satisfied, therefore, the assessee has filed the present appeal before us.