Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, MUMBAI BENCH “SMC”, MUMBAI
Before: SHRI JOGINDER SINGH & SHRI RAJESH KUMAR
Per Rajesh Kumar, Accountant Member:
The present appeal has been preferred by the assessee against the order dated 20.12.2017 of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [hereinafter referred to as the CIT(A)] relevant to assessment year 2009-10.
The assessee has raised two grounds of appeal. In the first ground, the assessee has challenged the reopening of assessment under section 147 of the Act whereas in the second ground the assessee has challenged the addition on merit agitating the confirmation of addition to the extent of Rs.10,37,461/- minus GP declared by Ld. CIT(A) as against
3. At the outset, we would like to mention that the assessee did not appear before the Bench today when the case was called up for hearing. However, a letter seeking for adjournment was filed which was declined by the Bench after examining the facts of the case as the issue is squarely covered by the several decisions of the co-ordinate benches of the Tribunal qua the bogus purchases. After perusing the order of Ld. CIT(A) and after hearing the Ld. D.R., we find that the case of the assessee has been validly opened by the AO after recording reason for such reopening which appears to have been rightly upheld by the CIT(A) after passing a very reasoned and detailed order. Moreover, there is nothing before us to controvert the findings of the Ld. CIT(A) on the issue of reopening. We, therefore, are inclined to uphold the order of Ld. CIT(A) on this issue.
4. So far as the sustenance of addition of Rs.10,37,461/- minus GP already declared by the assessee @ 5.27% is concerned, we observe from the perusal of the assessment order that assessee is undoubtedly a beneficiary of hawala entries to the tune of Rs.82,99,690/- which the assessee could not prove or substantiate during the course of assessment proceedings and consequently the AO added a sum of Rs.10,37,461/- being 12.5% of such purchases which was partly allowed by the FAA by directing the reduction of the amount of GP already declared by the assessee which is 3 Shri Jabarsingh D. Rajpurohit approximately 5.27% meaning thereby that 7.23% was sustained by Ld. CIT(A). In our view, the order of Ld. CIT(A) is very reasoned and does not call for any interference from our side as we do not find any reason to deviate from the findings of the Ld. CIT(A). In view of the fact that the co- ordinate Benches of the Tribunal have been taking a consistent view in the matter of bogus purchases to bring the profit on the bogus purchases to tax which has been done very reasonably by the Ld. CIT(A). Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal of the assessee.
Order pronounced in the open court on 17.09.2018.