DCIT,CC-3(2),CR-3, MUMBAI vs. CMS COMPUTERS LTD., MUMBAI

O R D E R

Per Manoj Kumar Aggarwal (Accountant Member ) 1. Aforesaid appeal by revenue for Assessment Year [in short referred to as ‘AY’] 2009-10 contest the order of Ld. Commissioner of Income- Tax (Appeals)-51, Mumbai, [in short referred to as ‘CIT(A)’], Appeal No. CIT(A)-51/IT-62/2015-16 dated 22/03/2017 qua certain relief provided to the assessee on account of alleged bogus purchases. None has appeared for assessee and no valid adjournment application is on record. Left with no option, we proceed to dispose-off the same on the basis of material on record and after hearing Ld. Departmental 2 M/s. CMS Computers Ltd. Assessment Year :2009-10 Representative [DR] who justified the impugned additions as made by Ld. AO. 2.1 Facts on record reveal that the assessee being resident corporate entity stated to be engaged in the business of trading in biometrics attendance and access control systems etc. was subjected to reassessment proceedings u/s 143(3) read with Section 147 on 30/03/2015 by Ld. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax – 3(2), Mumbai [AO] wherein the assessee was saddled with additions of Rs.78.38 Lacs on account of alleged bogus purchases. The original return filed on 30/09/2009 was assessed in scrutiny assessment u/s 143(3) on 27/12/2011. 2.2 The reassessment proceedings got triggered pursuant to receipt of certain information from DGIT (Investigation) & Sales Tax Department, Maharashtra that the assessee stood beneficiary of accommodation purchase bills aggregating to Rs.78.48 Lacs from 6 entities, the details of which have already been extracted at para 2 of the quantum assessment order. Accordingly, statutory notices u/s 148 / 143(2) & 142(1) were issued against the assessee wherein the assessee was directed to substantiate the purchase transactions. 2.3 Notices issued u/s 133(6) against all the suppliers, to confirm the transactions, did not elicit satisfactory response and the field inquiries revealed that none of the party existed at the given address. The assessee defended the same on the strength of copies of invoices, bank statements, quantitative stock statements etc. but failed to substantiate the delivery of material with documentary evidences like delivery challans, octroi receipts etc. The assessee also failed to provide latest