What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal found no reason to interfere with the CIT(A)'s order, which confirmed the addition on alleged non-genuine purchases. The assessee's grounds of appeal were rejected.

The assessee's appeals for AY 2010-11 and 2011-12 were heard ex-parte as the assessee did not appear. The CIT(A) confirmed an addition of 12.5% on alleged bogus purchases due to lack of genuineness.

What were the issues?

The primary issue was the genuineness of purchases and the consequent addition made by the AO and confirmed by the CIT(A).

Ramesh H. Bhansali vs ITO | ITAT Mumbai 2019

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, MUMBAI BENCHES “SMC”, MUMBAI

Before: SHRI A.K. GARODIA

For Respondent: Shri Vijay Kumar Soni, DR

by way of this common order for the sake of convenience.

These appeal were fixed for hearing on 30-01-2019.

Notices of hearing was sent to the assessee by RPAD on the address provided by the assessee in Form No. 36 i.e. the : 2 : & 3115/Mum/2018 appeal memo. In spite of notice, none appeared on behalf of the assessee at the time of hearing and there was no request for adjournment. Therefore, in the present facts, the appeal of the assessee was heard ex-parte qua the assessee.

Ld. DR for the Revenue supported the orders of the Ld. CIT (A).

The grounds raised by the assessee in both the assessment years are identical. Hence, the same are reproduced herein below from the appeal of the assessee for the AY. 2010-11 in ITA No. 3114/Mum/2018:

1. The learned CIT(A)-54 has erred in restricting the addition made by directing assessing officer to allow the GP already declared by the assessee on these alleged non-genuine purchases instead of deleting the addition in entirety.

I have considered the submissions of the Ld. DR for the Revenue. I find that at page Nos. 5 & 6 of his order, the CIT(A) has given a categorical finding that assessee has not produced books of account and parties from whom the purchases were made could not be produced before the AO and even the notices issued by the AO u/s. 133(6) to these parties could not be served on them. He has held that it is presumed that assessee had made purchases not from the parties mentioned

: 3 : & 3115/Mum/2018 in the assessee’s books but from the grey market and thereby making more profit, which was not disclosed to the Department. He has held that the purchases of the assessee are in doubt since there is no genuineness. So, the additional profit earned by the assessee was estimated by the AO at 12.5%. Ld. CIT(A) confirmed the addition made to the extent of 12.5% of the alleged bogus purchases. Considering the facts of the present case, I find no reason to interfere with the order of the CIT(A) in any of these two years. Grounds raised by assessee are rejected.

In the result, both the appeals are dismissed.

Order pronounced in the open court on 1st day of February, 2019

RAMESH H. BHANSALI,MUMBAI vs. ITO -19(3)(1), MUMBAI

What did the Tribunal hold?

What were the facts?

What were the issues?

Recent GST High Court judgments