KETAN GOKULDAS BADIANI,MUMBAI vs. ITO 33(2)(2), MUMBAI

Per Manoj Kumar Aggarwal (Accountant Member) 1. Aforesaid cross appeals for Assessment Year [in short referred to as ‘AY’] 2009-10 contest the order of Ld. Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals)-45, Mumbai, [in short referred to as ‘CIT(A)’], Appeal No. CIT(A)-45/ITO-33(2)(2)/ITA-27/2015-16 dated 27/02/2018 wherein the sole issue involved is addition on account of alleged bogus purchases. 2.1 Facts leading to the same are that assessee being resident individual engaged in dealing in leather items under proprietorship concern namely M/s Royal Belts was assessed u/s. 143(3) r.w.s. 147 for impugned AY on 23/03/2015 wherein the income of the assessee was assessed at Rs.57.88 Lacs after sole addition on account of alleged bogus purchases for Rs.55.68 Lacs. The original return of income filed by the assessee on 25/01/2010 at Rs.2.20 Lacs was processed u/s.143(1). 2.2 The re-assessment proceedings got triggered upon receipt of certain information from DGIT (Inv.)/ Sales tax Department, Maharashtra that the assessee stood beneficiary of bogus purchases bills aggregating to Rs.55.68 Lacs from 11 parties, the details of which has already been extracted at para-2 of the quantum assessment order. Accordingly, notice u/s 148 dated 14/03/2014 was issued to the assessee which was followed by statutory notices u/s. 143(2) and 142(1) wherein the assessee was directed to establish the genuineness of the purchases. 2.3 Notices issued u/s. 133(6) to all the suppliers to confirm the transactions were returned by postal authorities with the remarks “not Ketan Gokuldas Badiani Assessment Year :2009-10 known / left” which was confronted to the assessee. Although the assessee, in support of the transactions, submitted invoices, bank statements, stock register etc., however, failed to substantiate the delivery of the material. The factual matrix led the ld. AO treat the purchases as non-genuine and accordingly, the same were added to the income of the assessee.