GIRISH J. JAIN,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER -19(1)(3), MUMBAI

At the time of hearing it was noticed that inspite of issuance of notice by RPAD, none has appeared by the assessee nor any adjournment application was moved, therefore, considering the Rule 25 of the Appellate Tribunal Rules, 1963, the appeal of the assessee is being disposed off exparte qua the appellant and after hearing respondent on merits.

The only issue in this appeal relates to the addition assessing to the returned income on account of treating the purchases made from certain parties as bogus.

In brief, the relevant facts are that Assessing Officer noted that assessee had effected purchases of Rs.1,10,40,769/- from four parties as bogus on the ground that they were listed as hawala dealers by Maharashtra Sales Tax Department, meaning thereby the said parties were only issuing accommodation bills and not effecting actual sales / purchases. The Assessing Officer however, did not assess the total income of purchases as income but restricted the addition to 12.5% of the purchases being profit element involved on account of non-genuine purchases thereby resulting in addition of Rs.13,80,097/- to the returned income. Notably, the CIT(A) has allowed further relief in the sense that he allowed credit for the gross profit already declared with respect to the impugned purchase as per the books of accounts. For the balance of the addition sustained by the CIT(A) assessee is in further appeal before us.

After having heard the learned DR and perusing the order of the lower authorities, we find no reasons to interfere with the decision of the CIT(A) which is reasonable and considering that the same is based on a plausible reasoning laid down by the Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in the case of Sumit Sheth (2013) 38 Taxmann.com 385 (Guj). Thus, the assessee fails in this appeal.

Resultantly, the appeal filed by assessee is dismissed.