9911796707
TMI Blog2021 (6) TMI 439X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... AM And Shri Amarjit Singh, JM For the Assessee : Shri Jitendra Singh (AR) For the Revenue : Ms. Shreekala Pardeshi (DR) ORDER PER AMARJIT SINGH, JM: The assessee has filed the present appeal against the order dated 16.05.2018 passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-53, Mumbai [hereinafter referred to as the CIT(A) ] relevant to the A.Y. 2011-12. 2. The assessee has raised the following grounds: - 1. The Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) -53, Mumbai (hereinafter referred to as Ld. CIT(A) erred in passing the order dated 16.05.2018 without providing the Appellant an appropriate opportunity of being heard. Thus, the order passed by Ld. CIT(A) is against the principals of natural justice and ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nd or alter any of the grounds mentioned above. 3. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee filed its return of income on 30.09.2011 declaring total income to the tune of ₹ 9,41,153/- for the A.Y.2011-12. The return was processed u/s 143(1) of the Act on 14.04.2010. The case of the assessee was reopened upon the information received from the DGIT(Inv.) Wing Mumbai in which it was conveyed that the assessee has taken the bogus purchase entry from the following parties read as under.:- Name of the Hawala Parties Amount in Rs. Viraj Steel Alloys 5,00,000 Montex Industries 10,00,000 Stelco S ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Mahaveer Metal Corporation 3,99,999 PM Trading Com. 1,85,198 Kanak Metal Cor. 1,88,476 Vasudev Trading Co. P. Ltd. 2,73,286 Mahadev Metal 5,50,001 Vinayak Sales Cor. 5,99,999 Abhishek Trading and Co. 7,99,999 Priya Steel Cor. 10,00,096 Power Tech Trading. Co. 15,00,096 Rajratan Metal (India) 34,99,002 Rajeshwari Metal Indus. 132, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ne. It is also evident, the assessee could not conclusively prove that the purchases claimed to have been made from the declared source are genuine. However, the departmental authorities have not disputed the sales effected by the assessee, meaning thereby, the assessee might have purchased the goods from some unknown parties/source. For this reason alone the assessing officer has estimated the profit at 12.5% of the nongenuine purchases. Therefore, the dispute now is only with regard to the profit rate to be applied for estimating the income on non genuine purchases. After considering the overall facts and circumstances of this particular case we are of the considered opinion that estimation of profit @ 5% of the alleged non genuine purcha ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
