9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (9) TMI 1086X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... for Assessment Year [AY] 2010-11 contest the order of Ld. Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals)-17 [CIT(A)], Mumbai, Appeal No. CIT(A)-26/IT-69/15(3)(3)/13- 14 dated 29/05/2015 qua confirmation of certain additions on account of alleged bogus purchases. The assessment for impugned AY was framed by Ld. Income Tax Officer-15(3)(3), Mumbai [AO] u/s 143(3) of the Income Tax Act,1961 on 28/03/2013 wher ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... as noted that the assessee made aggregate purchase of Rs. 59,66,347/- from two suspicious entities namely Rupani & Co. and Sagar Steel Traders. The notices issued u/s 133(6) to the said entities elicited no satisfactory response. Accordingly, the assessee was asked to substantiate the purchases made from these two parties. The assessee, while defending the purchases, submitted copies of invoices a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hawala parties represented unexplained cash of the assessee, the peak credit of which was liable to be added to the income of the assessee. Accordingly, Ld. CIT(A) worked out peak credit of Rs. 45.51 Lacs against the same and proposed addition thereof as unexplained expenditure u/s 69C. The Ld. CIT(A) also proposed another addition @2% to account for commission against these purchases which worke ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y of material and failed to produce any of the party for confirmation of accounts. Notices issued u/s 133(6) elicited no satisfactory response. All these factors cast a serious doubt on assessee's claim. Therefore, in such a situation, the addition, which could be made, was to account for profit element embedded in these purchase transactions to factorize for profit earned by assessee against poss ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
