9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (1) TMI 487X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... has been passed. Accordingly the contention and ground raised by the assessee is rejected. AO has failed to issue notice u/s. 129 for change of incumbency from AO Shri Hemant Gaikwad to AO Shri Kundan Kumar - Once, the notice u/s. 129 has been issued by the ld. AO before passing the assessment order and has given opportunity to the assessee to represent case then such an allegation is incorrect. From the perusal of the notice u/s. 129 dated 05/01/2015, we find that ld. AO has issued notice and there is no illegality which assessee has tried to make that ld. AO has failed to issue notice u/s. 129, accordingly, this ground is also rejected. AO has got approval u/s. 151 and approving authority has approved the reasons in a mechanical fashion by stating Yes, I am satisfied - Once the reasons have been recorded and such reasons are otherwise are sustainable in law for which no objections have been raised by the assessee before the ld. AO nor the reasons have been challenged before us, then if such reasons have been approved by the authority u/s. 151, we do not find any infirmity that approving authority should give satisfaction in a detailed manner or give a satisfaction o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... , AO has applied Gross Profit. But in such case, such a huge GP rate of 15% of trading in ferrous and non-ferrous metal is unwarranted. In the A.Y.2009-10, the VAT of ferrous and non-ferrous metal was @4% and if at all assessee had tried to inflate the purchases only to save VAT to the extent of 4%. Moreover, before us certain Tribunal decisions have been filed wherein on trading of ferrous and non-ferrous metals GP addition of 2% has been made on such kind of alleged bogus purchases. Accordingly, we apply GP rate of 2% on the alleged bogus purchases. Appeal of the assessee is partly allowed. - Shri Amit Shukla, Judicial Member And Shri Gagan Goyal, Accountant Member For the Assessee : Shri S.G. Goyal For the Revenue : Shri Manoj Sinha ORDER PER AMIT SHUKLA (J.M): The aforesaid appeal has been filed by the assessee against order dated 12/02/2020 passed by ld. CIT(A)-Mumbai for the quantum of assessment u/s. 143(3) r.w.s. 147 for the A.Y.2009-10. 2. In the grounds of appeal, assessee has challenged various legal grounds challenging the jurisdiction of ld. AO, proceedings u/s. 148 on the ground that approval granted u/s. 151 is mechanical and ld ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... derived on a thumb rule basis without application of scientific methods and due consideration of relevant facts peculiar to the case even when the corresponding sales is accepted as being genuine and not bogus If corresponding sales wasn't treated bogus and considered genuine, how purchases could be treated bogus to justify addition is not answered both by the Ld AO and Ld CIT(A) 9. The Ld. AO erred in levying of interest under sec 234A on the assessed total income without considering the fact that the original ROI filed under sec. 139(1) was submitted by the appellant before the original due date and tax liability as applicable was discharged by that date by payment of self- assessment tax under sec. 140A. 3. The brief facts are that the original return of income was filed on 15/10/2010 for A.Y.2009-10 declaring total income of Rs. 2,11,800/-. The assessee s case was reopened on the basis of information received from DGIT (Investigation) Mumbai which in turn was based on information from Sales Tax department that assessee has made bogus purchases from two parties namely, Shradha Saburi Merchants Limited and Sai Kripa Metallic Tradecom Limited for sums aggregating to R ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... /- is to be added to the income of the assessee. The ld. CIT (A) too has confirmed the said action of the ld. AO in his exparte order holding that despite several notices, assessee has failed to appear or provide any submissions. 5. Before us, ld. Counsel for the assessee raised various legal objections. His first objection is that ld. AO has failed to issue copy of order passed by ld. PCIT for change of jurisdiction from AO Ward 25(2)(1) Mumbai to AO Ward 32(3)(1), Mumbai. To counter his submission, the ld. DR submitted that the order u/s. 127 has been passed, the copy of which was also produced before us. However, in so far as opportunity of hearing, she contended that as per the provision of Section 127(3), no opportunities are required to be given where the transfer is from one Assessing Officer to other which is situated in the same city. 6. We agree with the contention of the ld. DR that once the order of transfer u/s 127 has been passed by the competent authority transferring the case from one AO to another within the same city, no opportunity of hearing is required to be given and neither assessee has ever raised this objection that no order u/s. 127 has been passed. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nnot be held that reasons were not based on any tangible material. Therefore, it cannot be held that reasons recorded by the ld. AO is merely a borrowed satisfaction. Accordingly, ground No.4 is also rejected. 10. In ground No.6, assessee has challenged that ld. AO has failed to give assessee opportunity of cross examination of the parties who had deposed before the DGIT (Investigation) Mumbai. First of all, there is no reference of any statements of these parties nor ld. AO has based his addition on the basis of any kind of statement. Here, assessee has made the purchases from parties who have not confirmed the purchases. AO has made the addition on the basis of his inquiry and assessee has not produced these parties. There is no statement which requires cross examination then where is the question that AO should have given opportunity of cross examination. Very importantly neither before the ld. AO nor before the ld. CIT (A), assessee has ever asked for any cross examination nor there is any reference of any statement. Accordingly, such ground is ill-conceived and same is rejected. 11. Lastly, coming to the ground No.7 which is on merits, the ld. AO has applied gross profit ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
