VIKAS KUMAR JAIN,MUMBAI vs. ITO 19(3)(5), MUMBAI

None appeared on behalf of the assessee, even though notice of hearing was sent to the assessee by registered post on more than one occasion. Hence, I proceed to dispose of the appeal ex-parte, without presence of the assessee.

The assessee herein is the proprietor of a concern named M/s. Rajguru Infotech, which is engaged in the business of trading in computer peripherals. Consequent to the information received from the Sales Tax Department that certain parties are indulging in providing only accommodation bills without actually supplying the material and upon noticing that the assessee has purchased goods to the tune of ` 288.95 lakhs from such dealers during the year under consideration, the Assessing Officer reopened the assessment of 2 Shri Vikas Kumar Jain the year under consideration by issuing notice u/s. 148 of the Act. The Assessing Officer completed assessment by adding 12.5% of the alleged bogus purchases, which worked out to ` 36.11 lakhs. Before the learned CIT(A), the assessee explained the ratio of decision rendered by Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in the case of Simith P. Sheth (356 ITR 451) and submitted that addition should be around 6% only. The learned CIT(A) accordingly, restricted the addition to 6.5% of the value of non-genuine purchase. Still aggrieved, the assessee has filed this appeal before the Tribunal.

I heard learned Departmental Representative and perused the record. Since the assessee has agreed for addition @ 6% of the value of bogus purchases and since the learned CIT(A) has sustained the addition to the extent of 6.5% only, I do not find any reason to interfere with the order passed by the learned CIT(A) on this issue.

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed. Order has been pronounced in the Court on 18.9.2017.