PADMARAM R. CHOUDHARY,MUMBAI vs. ITO 19(2)(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.

I heard learned Departmental Representative and perused the record. Assessee is engaged in the business of trading in ferrous and non-ferrous metals. Consequent to the information received from the Sales Tax Department that certain traders are indulging in providing only accommodation bills without actually supplying the materials and upon noticing that the assessee has purchased goods to the tune of ` 151.04 lakhs from such dealers during the year under consideration, the Assessing Officer reopened the assessment by issuing notice u/s. 148 of the Act. The Assessing Officer completed the 2 Shri Padmaram R. Choudhary assessment by sustaining the addition to the extent of 12.5% of the value of non-genuine purchases. The learned CIT(A) also confirmed the same and hence the assessee has filed this appeal before the Tribunal.

I have gone through the order passed by the learned CIT(A) and also heard the contentions of learned Departmental Representative. I noticed that the learned CIT(A) has passed a reasoned order and hence the same does not call for any interference. Accordingly I uphold his order.

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