ZEAL MEDICAL PVT. LTD.,MUMBAI vs. ITO - 13(3)(4), MUMBAI

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.