9911796707
TMI Blog2021 (1) TMI 529X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 9;s. 143(3) r.w.s. 147 of the Act by the Id. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle - 11(3)(2), Mumbai (''the Id. Assessing Officer") is invalid, bad in law and against the principles of natural justice. 2. (a) The Id. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) - 18, Mumbai ("the Id. CIT(A)") erred in facts and law-in confirming the action of the Id. Assessing Officer in sustaining an addition of Rs. 3,68,63,625/- by estimating 12.5% of the alleged purchases of Rs. 29,49,09,0007- as profit margin on the ground that the parties were not produced and grossly ignoring the explanations, submissions and material placed on record. (b) The Ld. CIT(A) erred in facts and law in treating the purchases as bogus, without providing any material ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ent u/s 143(3) on 29/03/2016. Pursuant to receipt of certain information from DCIT-CC-4(3), Mumbai, it was alleged that the assessee had obtained bogus accommodation entries of bogus purchases aggregating to Rs. 2,949.09 Lacs from 4 entities. The details of the same has already been extracted in Para 5.1 of the assessment order. The information was received consequent to search action u/s. 132 by DGIT(Inv.) in case of Balaji Group on 30/04/2013 wherein incriminating evidences were seized which indicated procurement of accommodation entries of bogus purchases. The entire bogus transactions were admitted by Shri Jagdish Mundra in his statement recorded u/s. 132(4). Accordingly, during the course of assessment proceedings, the assessee was dir ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ent that the assessee remained unsuccessful in discharging the burden of establishing the genuineness of the purchases. Notices issued u/s 133(6) elicited no response and the assessee failed to produce even a single supplier to confirm the transactions. Therefore, the lower authorities had no option but to make estimated additions against these suspicious purchases. No new material has been adduced by the assessee before us that would warrant us to deviate from the findings of lower authorities. Therefore, we confirm the estimation of 12.5% as made by Ld. AO. The grounds thus raised stands dismissed. The assessee, in one of the ground, has asserted that no opportunity of cross-examine the suppliers was provided to the assessee. However, we ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
