DINESH MOHANLAL NAHAR, (HUF),PUNE vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD - 6(3), PUNE

PDF · subscribers
ITA 3/PUN/2018Status: DisposedITAT Pune15 November 2018AY 2011-124 pages

In favour of the Revenue: the assessee's appeal was dismissed. From the AI summary of this appeal.

AI SummaryDismissed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal upheld the addition of Rs. 1,45,485/- as bogus purchases. Since no evidence was presented to dispute the information received, the CIT(A) was justified in sustaining the addition.

What were the facts?

The AO received information about the assessee being a beneficiary of accommodation entries for purchases amounting to Rs. 1,45,485/-. The assessee did not provide any material to controvert this information before the AO or the CIT(A).

What were the issues?

Whether the addition on account of alleged bogus purchases is justified when the assessee failed to provide any evidence to controvert the information received by the AO.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 69

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, PUNE BENCH “SMC”, PUNE

Before: SHRI R.S. SYAL

For Respondent: Shri Rajesh Gawli

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE BENCH “SMC”, PUNE

BEFORE SHRI R.S. SYAL, VICE PRESIDENT

आयकर अपील सं. / ITA No. 03/PUN/2018 िनधा�रण वष� / Assessment Year : 2011-12

Dinesh Mohanlal Nahar (HUF), ITO, Ward-6(3), Prop. M/s. Patel Metal Vs. Pune Industries, 715, Guruwar Peth, Pune – 411 002 PAN : AAAHD8171K (Appellant) (Respondent)

Appellant by None Respondent by Shri Rajesh Gawli Date of hearing 14-11-2018 Date of pronouncement 15-11-2018 आदेश / ORDER PER R.S.SYAL, VP :

This appeal by the assessee is arising out of the order dated 10-10-2017 passed by the CIT(A)-13, Pune in relation to the A.Y. 2011-12.

2.

The only issue raised in this appeal is against the confirmation of addition of Rs.1,45,485/-, being alleged bogus purchases u/s.69 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter also called as ‘the Act’).

2 ITA No.03/PUN/2018 Dinesh Mohanlal Nahar (HUF)

3.

Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that the AO got

information from the office of Principal DIT (Investigation),

Mumbai regarding the assessee being one of the beneficiaries

of accommodation entries from M/s. Rajan Gems amounting

to Rs.1,45,485/-. Based on it, a notice u/s.148 was issued and

an addition of Rs.1,45,485/- was made, which came to be

upheld in the first appeal.

4.

I have heard the ld. DR and perused the relevant material

on record. There is no appearance from the side of the

assessee. The notice sent through the Registered Post has been

returned by the postal authorities with remarks “Not in given

address”. Under such circumstances, I am proceeding to

dispose of the appeal ex parte qua the assessee.

5.

It is seen that the impugned addition is based on an

information received from the DIT(I) about the assessee,

being, a beneficiary of accommodation entry of purchase. No

material was placed either before the AO or the First Appellate

Authority to controvert this information. In the absence of any

evidence being placed before me as well, I am convinced that

3 ITA No.03/PUN/2018 Dinesh Mohanlal Nahar (HUF)

the ld. CIT(A) was justified in sustaining the addition. I, therefore, uphold the same.

6.

In the result, the appeal is dismissed.

Order pronounced in the Open Court on 15th November, 2018.

Sd/- (R.S.SYAL) उपा�य� उपा�य�/ VICE PRESIDENT उपा�य� उपा�य�

पुणे Pune; �दनांक Dated : 15th November, 2018 सतीश आदेश क� क� �ितिलिप �ितिलिप अ�ेिषत अ�ेिषत/Copy of the Order is forwarded to: क� क� �ितिलिप �ितिलिप अ�ेिषत अ�ेिषत आदेश आदेश आदेश 1. अपीलाथ� / The Appellant; 2. ��यथ� / The Respondent; 3. आयकर आयु�(अपील) / The CIT (Appeals)-13, Pune 4. आयकर आयु� / The Pr. CIT-3, Pune 5. िवभागीय �ितिनिध, आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, पुणे “SMC” / DR ‘SMC’, ITAT, Pune; 6. गाड� फाईल / Guard file. // True copy / आदेशानुसार आदेशानुसार आदेशानुसार/ BY ORDER, आदेशानुसार // True Copy // Senior Private Secretary आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण ,पुणे / ITAT, Pune

ITA No.03/PUN/2018 Dinesh Mohanlal Nahar (HUF)

Date 1. Draft dictated on 14-11-18 Sr.PS 2. Draft placed before author 15.11.18 3. Draft proposed & placed before the - second member 4. Draft discussed/approved by Second - Member. 5. Approved Draft comes to the Sr.PS/PS 6. Kept for pronouncement on 7. File sent to the Bench Clerk 8. Date on which file goes to the AR 9. Date on which file goes to the Head Clerk. 10. Date of dispatch of Order.

*

More judgments on Section 69

All 9,011 judgments and leading authorities on Section 69 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →