Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, PUNE BENCH “SMC”, PUNE
Before: SHRI R.S. SYAL
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.
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)
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.
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.
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.
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.
*