9911796707
TMI Blog2023 (5) TMI 278X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Respondent : Ms. Neelam C. Jadhav, Advocate. JUDGMENT PER DHIRAJ SINGH THAKUR, J.: Both these appeals have been preferred under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ("the Act") challenging the order dated 20th January, 2017 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Bench 'F', Mumbai ("ITAT"), for the assessment years 2009-10 and 2010-11. 2. The facts and issues arising in both these ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... eived from the Sales Tax Department in respect of certain bogus parties. The TIN of the said parties matched with those from whom the purchases were alleged to have been made by the Appellant. Notices under Section 133(6) of the Act were issued by the A.O. to which there was no compliance. The assessee is also stated to have failed to produce the said parties from the aforesaid ten entities. Cons ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sessee as also the revenue, which was finally decided by virtue of the order impugned dated 20th January, 2017, which is impugned in the present appeal. The Tribunal upheld the view of the CIT(A) to treat the purchases from ten parties as bogus and also upheld the view expressed by the CIT(A) to sustain the addition to the extent of 12.5% of the amount of the disputed purchases relying upon the de ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ppliers, who are alleged to have been providing accommodation entries. It is not denied that the works allotted had been completed for the concerned agency, which would have been otherwise impossible, if the entire purchases made by the Appellant were to be held as non-genuine. In our opinion the order passed by the Tribunal warrants no interference. No substantial questions of law arise in the p ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
