Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, MUMBAI BENCH “J” MUMBAI
Before: SHRI JOGINDER SINGH & SHRI N.K. PRADHAN
ORDER
PER N.K. PRADHAN, AM
This is an appeal filed by the assessee. The relevant assessment year is 2009-10. The appeal is directed against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-44, Mumbai [in short CIT(A)] and arises out of the assessment completed u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 147 of the Income Tax Act 1961, (the ‘Act’).
The Ld. counsel of the assessee submits that the appellant would not like to press the 2nd ground of appeal regarding validity of re- opening u/s 148 of the Act. He submits the same and signs as not pressed in the relevant portion of the grounds of appeal. Accordingly, the 2nd ground of appeal is dismissed as not pressed.
The 1st ground of appeal
reads as under: On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred by confirming the addition made by AO by making an addition u/s 69C by taking fair profit @ 31.88% of non-genuine purchases from parties declared by sales tax department as Hawala parties amounting to Rs.56,92,486/- and make addition thereby of Rs.18,14,765/-.
4. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that the assessee filed her return of income for the assessment year (AY) 2009-10 declaring total income of Rs.33,53,140/-. On the basis of inquiries conducted by the Sales Tax Department, the AO received information from the Director General of Income Tax (Inv.) that the assessee had obtained bills of bogus purchases from Sachi Mercantile Pvt. Ltd., Anshu Mercantile Pvt. Ltd., Surachi Multitrade Pvt. Ltd. and Dhiren Mercantile Pvt. Ltd. amounting to Rs.56,92,486/-. During the course of assessment proceedings, the AR of the assessee filed a letter dated 30.12.2014 and submitted (i) ledger account of the four parties, (ii) copies of bills of purchases, (iii) banks statements for the account payee cheques issued to the four parties and (iv) corresponding sales invoices made against the purchases. The AO, in order to verify the genuineness of transaction, issued notice u/s 133(6) on 16.12.2014 to the four parties. However, the said notices were received back in the office of the AO as unserved. Then he asked the assessee vide order sheet noting dated 27.12.2014 to produce the said parties. The assessee failed to produce the parties before the AO to prove the genuineness of transaction.