9911796707
TMI Blog2020 (11) TMI 5X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... DALE - JM: The assessee has filed an appeal against the order of CIT(A)-36, Mumbai passed u/s 143(3) r.w.s 147 and 250 of the Act for the A.Y 2010-11. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal: 1. CIT(A) -36, Mumbai erred in confirming the addition of Rs. 2,39,090/- being 12.5% of alleged bogus purchases of Rs. 19,12,716/- made by the appellant. The appellant Submits that (i) it ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 12.5% alleged bogus purchases made by the AO and confirmed by the CIT(A). 2.The brief facts of the case are that, the assessee is a partnership firm engaged in the business of trading in ferrous and non-ferrous metals and scrap. The assessee has filed the return of income on 14.09.2010 with a total income of Rs. 1,39,42,130/-.Subsequently filed revised return of income on 30.09.2010 with total in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 6/-.The Ld. AR appeared from time to time and filed the details of bank statements, ledger copy of party and other information. The A.O was not satisfied with the details filed and to verify genuineness of purchases issued notice u/s 133(6) of the Act. But the notice issued was returned un-served by the postal authorities and also the assessee has failed to produce the parties. Hence, the A.O has ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... me ratio should be applied to the bogus purchases. Further, in the assessee's own case for the A.Y 2011-12, the Hon'ble ITAT has considered the Coordinate Bench decisions and Hon'ble Bombay High Court decision of Pr.CIT Vs. Md. Haji Adam & Co. in ITANo.1004 of 2016 and the remanded the matter to the file of Assessing Officer. Further the LdAR prayed for allowing the assessee appeal. Contra, the Ld ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
