Case Law Details
Vijay B Shah (HUF) Vs ITO (ITAT Mumbai)
In the given case, the assessee is engaged in the trading of iron and steel. A.O. has reopened the assessment on getting information regarding assessee taking accommodation purchase bills. The A.O. made enquiry and found that the assessee has taken purchase bills without delivery of goods. Accordingly, he added 12.5% of such alleged purchases in assessee’s income. By the impugned order, the Id. CIT(A) after considering various judicial pronouncements on the issue and the facts and circumstances of the case upheld the order of the A.O. Hence now assessee appealed into ITAT. But neither any body has appeared on behalf of the assessee in spite of issue and service of notice nor any adjournment was filed.
ITAT have heard the contentions of the Id. DR and carefully gone through the orders of the authorities below and found that the A.O. upheld addition only to the extent of 12.5% of the alleged bogus purchases and did not disturb the sales. Further, by the impugned order, the Id. CIT(A) after considering various judicial pronouncements on the issue and the facts and circumstances of the case upheld the order of the A.O. after giving detailed finding at para 6.7 to 6.21 of the appellate order. Nothing was placed before ITAT so as to persuade them to deviate from the findings recorded by the Id. CIT(A). Accordingly, ITAT do not find any reason to interfere in the order of the Id. CIT(A) and hence uphold the same.
In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed
FULL TEXT OF THE ITAT JUDGEMENT
Please become a Premium member. If you are already a Premium member, login here to access the full content.
Author Bio
