KIRTILILA DIAONDS P.LTD,MUMBAI vs. ITO 5(2)(2), MUMBAI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 2403/MUM/2017Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 September 2018AY 2007-086 pages

In favour of the Revenue: the assessee's appeal was dismissed. From the AI summary of this appeal.

AI SummaryDismissed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal upheld the additions made by the Assessing Officer and confirmed by the CIT(A). The assessee failed to appear and provide any evidence to controvert the findings of the revenue authorities regarding the genuineness of the purchases.

What were the facts?

The assessee company was found to have made bogus purchases of Rs. 80,51,000/- from a party identified as an entry operator. The revenue authorities relied on a confession recorded under Section 132(4) and information from the investigation wing.

What were the issues?

Whether the purchases made by the assessee were genuine or bogus, and if bogus, whether the additions to the total income were justified.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 143(3),Section 147,Section 132(4),Section 133(6)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “H”

Before: HON’BLE SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN, JM & HON’BLE SHRI N. K. PRADHAN, AM

For Appellant: Shri Manoj Kumar, DR सुनवाईकीतारीख/

आदेश / O R D E R

Per Sandeep Gosain, Judicial Member:

1.

The present Appeal filed by the assessee is against the order of Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-10, Mumbai, dated 28.01.17 for AY 2007-08.

M/s Kirtilila Diamonds Pvt. Ltd.

2.

At the very outset, it is noticed that none has appeared on behalf of assessee in spite of several calls and even no application for adjournment was moved today. On the perusal of order sheet, we observed that even the last date of hearing, the assessee was not present in the court and therefore, notice was send through RPAD. From the records, we noticed that RPAD for 30.07.18 was issued on 11.07.18 and for 30.08.18, the RPAD was issued on 31.07.18 on the address mentioned by the assessee in Form No.

36.

Therefore, we are of the view that there is a due compliance of orders by the registry. Since, neither the assessee nor his representative is present today. However, on the other hand Ld. DR is present in the court and is ready with arguments. Therefore we have decided to proceed with the hearing of the case ex-parte with the assistance of the Ld. DR and the material placed on record.

3.

The only issue /ground raised in this appeal is with regard to challenging the additions of Rs. 80,51,000/- on account of bogus purchases.

M/s Kirtilila Diamonds Pvt. Ltd.

4.

We have heard Ld. DR and we have also perused the material placed on record as well as the orders passed by revenue authorities. From the records, we find that the assessee is a company engaged in the business of trading in diamonds. The assessment order u/s 143(3) r.w.s 147 of the I.T. Act was passed on 20.03.15, by making additions of Rs. 80,51,000/- on account of bogus purchases from Gautam Jain Group. As per the facts of the present case, the information was received by the revenue from DGIT(Invst), Mumbai that assessee company had taken accommodation entries of Rs. 80,51,000/- from M/s Krishna Diam Pvt. Ltd., concern controlled and managed by Gautam Jain and Others and entry operator. The Investigation wing had found that this party was not dealing in any sale of goods, but was only providing bogus invoices for certain commission. In this respect, the revenue had relied upon the categorical confession recorded u/s 132(4) of the Act and in order to verify the genuineness of the purchases, required notice u/s 133(6) was also sent to the above party.

M/s Kirtilila Diamonds Pvt. Ltd. After carrying out necessary verifications, a sum of Rs. 80,51,000/- was treated as out of assessee’s unexplained income and thus added to the total income of the assessee. The Ld. CIT(A) after considering the facts of the present case, upheld the order of AO and while doing so, Ld. CIT(A) had also concluded that during the year under consideration, there was no income earned by the assessee and no sales were made, no closing stock existed with the assessee, except the purchases, no other expenditure was debited in the P & L account. Apart from that, Ld. CIT(A) also found that assessee had not made any attempt to prove the genuineness of the purchases for producing the party for examination of the AO. No bank details /statements of the parties, confirmation from the party, its I.T. particulars, etc were filed for the scrutiny by the revenue. Considering those facts, the Ld. CIT(A) had upheld the additions made by AO. Even before us, neither the assessee nor his representative had appeared. No paper book had been filed and the findings of the revenue authorities had also not been controverted or rebutted. Therefore in these circumstances, we have no other option except to dismiss the appeal of the assessee.

M/s Kirtilila Diamonds Pvt. Ltd. We see no reasons to interfere into or deviate from the findings so recorded by the Ld. CIT (A). Hence, we are of the considered view that the findings so recorded by the Ld. CIT (A) are judicious and are well reasoned and consequently, the grounds raised by the assessee are dismissed.

5.

In the net result, the appeal filed by the assessee stands dismissed with no order as to cost.

Order pronounced in the open court on 4th Sept., 2018. Sd/- Sd/- (N. K. Pradhan) (Sandeep Gosain) लेखासदस्य / Accountant Member न्याययकसदस्य / Judicial Member मुंबई Mumbai;यदनांकDated : 04.09.2018 Sr.PS. Dhananjay M/s Kirtilila Diamonds Pvt. Ltd. आदेशकीप्रनिनिनिअग्रेनर्ि/Copy of the Order forwarded to : अपीलाथी/ The Appellant 1. 2. प्रत्यथी/ The Respondent 3. आयकरआयुक्त(अपील) / The CIT(A) 4. आयकरआयुक्त/ CIT- concerned यवभागीयप्रयतयनयध, आयकरअपीलीयअयधकरण, मुंबई/ DR, ITAT, 5. Mumbai 6. गार्डफाईल / Guard File आदेशधिुसधर/ BY ORDER,

More judgments on Section 147

All 49,210 judgments and leading authorities on Section 147 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →