9911796707
TMI Blog2021 (12) TMI 400X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ly stated the facts are that, assessee engaged in the business of trading in Bright Steel Bars and Wire Rods, filed return of income on 21.09.2010 declaring income of Rs..14,25,670/- for the A.Y.2010-11 and the return was processed u/s. 143(1) of the Act. Subsequently, the case was selected for scrutiny by issuing notice u/s. 143(2) of the Act. Assessing Officer based on information from the Sales Tax Department, Mumbai about the accommodation entries provided by various dealers and assessee was also one of the beneficiary from those dealers, required the assessee to prove the genuineness of the purchases of Rs..29,29,259/- made from M/s. Geeta Bright. In response assessee vide letter 06.02.2013 furnished copies of purchase indicating the m ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... is in appeal. 4. Inspite of issue of notice none appeared on behalf of assessee nor any adjournment was sought. Thus, I proceed to dispose of this appeal on hearing Ld. DR on merits. 5. Ld.DR vehemently supported the orders of the authorities below. 6. Heard Ld.DR, perused the orders of the authorities below. An identical issue has come before the Coordinate Bench in the case of Shri Pravin C. Bokadia v. ITO in ITA.No. 3552/Mum/2019 dated 17.07.2020 wherein the Ld.CIT(A) enhanced the addition to 100% of non-genuine purchases relying on the decision in the case of Shoreline Hotel Pvt. Ltd., (supra) and the Tribunal considering the decision of the Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of M. Haji Adam & Co. (ITA.No. 1004 of 2016 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s expenditure incurred in the maintenance by a hotel. In contrast the present case is a case where the assessee is a dealer in steel and disallowance has been done by the Assessing Officer on a finding that the assessee has made purchases through grey market. 8. In our considered opinion by no stretch of imagination it can be said that there is any similarity in the facts upon which the honourable jurisdictional High Court has rendered the above said decision and the facts of the present case." 7. Thus, I am of the opinion that the Ld.CIT(A) is not correct in enhancing the disallowance to 100% of the genuine purchases placing reliance on the decision of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of Shoreline Hotels Pvt. Ltd., (supra). ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
