Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “J”, BENCH MUMBAI
Before: SHRI R.C.SHARMA, AM & SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN, JM
आदेश / O R D E R PER R.C.SHARMA (A.M):
These are the appeals filed by the assessee against the order of CIT(A)-24, Mumbai dated 06/01/2017 for A.Y.2010-11 & 2011-12 in the matter of order passed u/s.143(3) r.w.s. 147 of the IT Act.
The following grounds have been taken by the assessee:- 1) Based on facts and circumstances of the case Assessing officer erred in reopening the assessment and Id. CIT(A) also failed to appreciate that – a) The assessing officer erred in rejecting the preliminary objections raised on the reopening of the assessment. b) Assessing officer ought to have given copies of evidence and document in his possession relying on which he concluded that there is indeed income which has escaped the assessment.
2034/Mum/2017 M/s. Intertech Fittings India Pvt. Ltd., c) Reopening of assessment was unlawful, injudicious, without considering facts of the case, arbitrary, unilateral, without considering submissions of the assessee and needs to be reconsidered. 2) Based on facts and circumstances of the case assessing officer erred in disallowing the alleged bogus purchases amounting to Rs. 13,26,887/-and making the addition to income and learned CIT(A) also failed to consider the following points- a) Before making addition to the income assessing officer ought to have considered submissions of the assessee. b) assessing officer failed to appreciate that assessee be given a proper opportunity to defend himself, assessee ought to have been given an opportunity to cross examine witnesses and examine statement of witnesses extracted by assessing officer. c) Addition to income is without considering submissions of assessee, without giving an opportunity to assessee to protect himself, without examining the details filed by assessee, unlawful, injudicious, unilateral, arbitrary and needs to be deleted. 3) Based on facts and circumstances of the case Learned CIT (Appeal) failed to appreciate that the addition made by A.O is based on presuming the income considering gross profit percentage as basis and also failed to consider that-a) Before making presumptive assessment assessing officer ought to have conclusively established case of bogus purchase in hands of assessee. b) Assessing officer eared in making assessment based on assumptions, presumptions, estimates, surmises and premises. Assessing officer failed to appreciate that there is no basis for estimating bogus purchases at gross profit percentage of alleged bogus purchase from same parties. c) Addition is made based on assumptions, estimates, presumptions, is arbitrary, injudicious unilateral without considering facts of the case and without considering submissions by assessee and needs to be deleted, 4) The appellant craves leave to add, amend, alter / vary and / or withdraw / any or all the above grounds of appeal.
3. Similar addition was made by the AO in the A.Y.2011-12.
At the outset, learned AR placed on record letter dated 17/08/2017 requesting for withdrawal of both the appeals.