JAINAM EXPORTS P.LTD, MUMBAI vs. ITO 2(2)(1), MUMBAI

None appeared for the assessee despite adjournment of today being granted as requested. Consequently, the appeal is decided exparte qua the assessee after hearing the learned DR and perusing the material available on record.

The brief facts of the case are that the AO found that the assessee has made bogus purchases and disallowed 100% amount thereof. In first appeal, the learned CIT(A) reduced it to 12.5% considering the judgment of Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in the case of CIT vs. Smith P D Sheth 356 ITR 146, holding it to be benefit element in the purchases and reduced the addition to Rs. 42,890/- Aggrieved, the assessee is in appeal.

The learned DR contends that because of the smallness of the tax demand, revenue could not file the appeal. Further, 100% disallowance has been hugely reduced to 12.5% that too on the basis of the judgement of Hon’ble Gujarat High Court. The assessee cannot have any legitimate grievance thereon that is the reason why the assessee has remained absent. Therefore, he contended that the order of the learned CIT(A) may be confirmed.

I have heard the learned DR and have gone through the material available on record. I find merit in the contention of the learned DR. The learned CIT(A) has drastically reduced the disallowed from 100% to 12.5% by giving cogent reasons and by relying on the judgment of Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in the case of CIT vs. Smith P D Sheth (supra). I see no infirmity in the order of the learned CIT(A).

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is dismissed..