JAGAT SINGH,MUMBAI vs. ITO 20(2)(1), MUMBAI

The assessee, an individual, is engaged in the business of trading in flanges, tube fittings and iron and steel. For the assessment year under consideration, he filed his return of income on 29th September 2009. On the basis of information received from the Sales Tax

The Assessing Officer, therefore, called upon the assessee to produce necessary evidence for proving the genuineness of the purchases. In response, the assessee submitted his explanation claiming the purchases to be genuine. In support of such claim, assessee stated to have furnished copies of purchase bills, bank statement showing payment through cheque, ledger account copies, etc. However, the Assessing Officer was not convinced with the explanation of the assessee. Therefore, to ascertain the real nature of transaction, the Assessing Officer issued notices under section 133(6) of the Act to the concerned parties. However, as observed by him all

The learned Commissioner (Appeals) also sustained the addition made by the assessee.

When the appeal was called for hearing no one was present on behalf of the assessee. It is pertinent to note here, on 16th November 2016, when the appeal was earlier fixed for hearing, Ms. Sanjukta Chowdhury, learned Counsel, made an oral request for adjournment of the appeal. However, when the bench made a query whether she is authorised by the assessee to make such request, she submitted that letter of authority would be filed on the next day i.e., 17th November 2016. Accordingly, appeal was adjourned to 17th November 2016. When the appeal was called for hearing on 17th November 2016, no one appeared on behalf of the assessee nor there is a petition seeking adjournment. Therefore, we proceed to dispose off the appeal ex–

We have heard the learned Departmental Representative and perused the material on record. It is evident, on the basis of information available indicating that the assessee has indulged in bogus purchases, the Assessing Officer had re–opened the assessment under section 147 of the Act. During the assessment proceedings, it came to the notice of the Assessing Officer that some of the parties from whom the assessee claimed to have made purchases are appearing in the list of hawala dealers prepared by the Sales Tax Department. In fact, as per the information available with the Assessing Officer before the sales tax authorities concerned parties have accepted / admitted that they are only provided accommodation bills without actual supply of goods. It is also evident on record during the assessment proceedings, the Assessing Officer not only brought all these information to the notice of the assessee but for ascertaining the genuineness of the purchases conducted enquiry by issuing notice under section 133(6) of the Act. However, as stated by the Assessing Officer, all these notices returned back un–served. When the Assessing Officer called upon the assessee to produce the concerned parties, he failed to do so. In fact, the assessee even failed to obtain confirmations from the concerned parties in support of purchases

As far as levy of interest is concerned, the same being mandatory and consequential, there is no need to interfere with the same.

In the result, appeal stands dismissed. Order pronounced in the open Court on 30.11.2016