No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, MUMBAI BENCH “SMC”, MUMBAI
Before: SHRI G.S. PANNU
The captioned appeal by the assessee is directed against the order of CIT(A)-21, Mumbai dated 01.06.2016, pertaining to the Assessment Year 2010-11, which in turn has arisen from the order passed by the Assessing Officer, Mumbai dated 20.02.2015 under section 143(3) r.w.s 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short ‘the Act’).
In this appeal, the dispute revolves around the purchases of Rs.66,456/- which has been treated to be bogus by the income-tax authorities.
In brief, the relevant facts are that in the assessment proceedings, the Assessing Officer noted that assessee had effected purchases from one, M/s. Jainam Trade Corporation of Rs.66,456/-, which was a concern listed as a hawala party by the Sales Tax authorities meaning that the said concern did not carry out any actual sale/purchase of goods, but was only providing accommodation bills. Noticing the failure of the assessee to produce the party or the requisite evidence, the Assessing Officer treated the amount of purchases as bogus and added it to the returned income. The CIT(A) has upheld the stand of the Assessing Officer by noticing that the said concern was not traceable at the address given on the invoices and, as the assessee could not provide the current address, the requisite powers under Sec. 133(6) or 131 of the Act could not have been exercised by the Assessing Officer, thus the onus was on the assessee to establish the genuineness of the purchases. The CIT(A) also noted that the Assessing Officer records in the assessment order that assessee has agreed to the disallowance. In the absence of any new evidence before him, the CIT(A) upheld the treatment of the purchases as bogus, but since assessee claimed that the purchase was of a fixed asset, he directed the Assessing Officer to verify the same and if it is found that the purchase was of fixed asset, then, the disallowance shall be restricted only to the extent of the depreciation claimed. Against such a decision of the CIT(A), assessee is in further appeal before the Tribunal.
Though at the time of hearing, the learned representative assailed the orders of the authorities below, but there is no repudiation to the fact that assessee had agreed to the addition before the Assessing Officer. Therefore, on this point itself, I do not find any reason to interfere with the decision of the CIT(A), which is hereby affirmed. Thus, assessee fails in its appeal.
In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed.
Order pronounced in the open court on 23rd February, 2018.