9911796707
TMI Blog2020 (4) TMI 406X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... explanation was offered as regards bogus purchase of ₹ 7,44,644/-. Therefore, AO has rightly made addition u/s 69C read with Section 4, 5 and 14 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The CIT(A) also confirmed the addition after going through all the evidences produced by the assessee before the Revenue authorities. The assessee failed to establish the bogus purchases. Therefore, there is no need to interfere with the findings of the CIT(A). Hence, appeal of the assessee is dismissed. - ITA No. 1787/DEL/2019 (A.Y 2007-08) - - - Dated:- 2-3-2020 - MS SUCHITRA KAMBLE, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Appellant by None Respondent by Sh. Jagdish Singh, Sr. DR ORDER PER SUCHITRA KAMBLE, JM ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... and circumstances of the case, the learned CIT(A) has erred both on facts and in law in confirming the addition of an amount of ₹ 1,86,161/- on account of purchases made by the assessee treating the same as bogus invoking section 69C of the Income Tax Act. (5) (i) On the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned CIT(A) has erred, both on facts and in law in confirming that the firm M/s Om Agencies,, is not engaged in actual business ignoring the fact that during the course of search on these firms substantial inventory in respect of the material being purchased by the assessee was found, which confirms the fact that these firms were doing actual business. (ii) On the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ons have been made against the assessee and without following the principles of natural justice. 3. The assessee filed return of income on 23.10.2007 at a total income of ₹ 1,03,000/-. Assessment u/s 143(3) of the Act was completed on 24.11.2009 at a total income of ₹ 1,31,658/-. Subsequently, the Assessing Officer received an information from the Investigation Wing through CIT(Central)- New Delhi, as per which the appellant has obtained accommodation entries in the form of bogus purchases through various persons namely, Sh. Rakesh Gupta, Sh. Vishesh Gupta, Sh. Navneet Jain and Sh. Vaibhav Jain. Based on the information, the Assessing Officer reopened assessment u/s 147 of the Act and issued notice u/s 148 on 31.03.2014. Du ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... O was also not satisfied with the reply of the appellant and therefore, the AO has treated these purchases of ₹ 7,44,644/- as bogus purchases and has treated the same as income of the appellant u/s 69C of the Act. 4. Being aggrieved by the assessment order, the assessee filed appeal before the CIT(A). The CIT(A) dismissed the appeal of the assessee. 5. At the time of hearing, none appeared for the assessee and there is no application for adjournment. The notice has been duly served to the assessee. Therefore, we are proceeding on the basis of the submissions made by the assessee before the Assessing Officer as well as before the CIT(A). 6. The Ld. DR relied upon the assessment order and the order of the CIT(A). 7. We have ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
