2018 (10) TMI 258 - AT - Income Tax

Reopening of assessment - mere change of opinion - bogus purchase sales transactions - Held that:- The ratio laid down in Claggett Brachi Company Ltd. vs CIT (1989 (4) TMI 2 - SUPREME COURT), in Anusandhan Investment Ltd. vs DCIT [2006 (8) TMI 146 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT] and Piaggio Vehicles Pvt. Ltd. vs DCIT [2007 (2) TMI 173 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT] held that in a case of reopening after four years subsequent to scrutiny assessment, contradiction was recovered by between tax audit report and return of income, it was a case of omissions and/or failure on the part of the assessee to disclose fully and truly all facts for computation of income, therefore, respectfully following the aforesaid decisions and the factual matrix narrated before us, we find no infirmity in the conclusion of CIT(Appeal), therefore, the on the impugned issue of validity of reopening, we uphold the same, resulting in to, dismissal of the ground raised by the assessee.

Addition with respect to purchases/sales from six parties - non-compliance to the notice issued u/s. 133(6) - Held that:- In the present appeals, it is noticed that the notices issued under section 133(6) were not complied with and the assessee did not produce the parties before the learned Assessing Officer to prove the genuineness of the transactions. Even the new addresses, if any, of these parties were never supplied by the assessee to the AO so that the noticed could be issued to such parties at the new addresses. The genuineness of the transactions thus, could not be established by the assessee. Therefore, considering the totality of facts, cases relied upon by both sides, discussion made hereinabove, to plug the leakage of revenue, we are of the view that the learned CIT(A) has taken one of the best possible view to estimate the profit @12.5%. Thus, the stand taken by the learned CIT(A) is affirmed.