9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (9) TMI 184X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e present appeal against the order dated 25.09.2017 passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax -53, Mumbai [hereinafter referred to as the "CIT(A)"] relevant to the assessment years 2009-10. 3. The assessee has raised the following grounds: - "On the facts & circumstances of the Ld. Commr. of Income Tax (Appeals) has erred in holding that the notice u/s. 148 was validly issued and the order passed tits. 43(3) rws 143 is valid and legal order. The appellant prays that the notice issued u/s. 148 is bad in law and the basic conditions of Section 147 are not satisfied. The appellant prays that the order passed by. the Learned Assessing Officer and confirmed by the (Appeals) is bad in law and may be set aside. 2. On the facts & circumstances ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ving effect the order of Hon'ble tribunal. 7. The appellant craves leave to add, alter or amend the grounds of appeal which are without prejudice to one other." 4. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee filed his return of income on 03.09.2009 declaring total income to the tune of Rs. 1,23,820/-. The assessment was completed u/s 143(3) of the Act determining total income to the tune of Rs. 1,23,820/-. Thereafter, an information was received from the office of DGIT (Inv.), Mumbai regarding Hawala Operators and beneficiaries involving huge amounts. The said information was received from the Sales Tax Department who identified such Hawala Operators. The information received from the Sales Tax Department was forwarded to this of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Act is not in accordance with law and is liable to be set aside. It is also argued that all the necessary details with regard to the objectionable transaction if any, has been given to by virtue of letter dated 04.03.2015 but the same was not properly considered, therefore, the provisions u/s 147/148 of the Act has wrongly been invoked, therefore, the proceeding u/s 147/148 of the Act is liable to be set aside. It is also argued that the said provision was invoked on the basis of information received from the Sales Tax Authorities which is not independently acquired by AO, therefore, in the said circumstances, the proceeding u/s 147/148 of the Act is liable to be set aside. However, on the other hand, the Ld. Representative of the Revenue h ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... view that the law settled in the case of Shoreline Hotel P. Ltd. Vs. CIT (2018) 98 taxmann.com 234 (Bom) is quite applicable to the fact of the present case, therefore, we upheld the finding of the CIT(A) on these issues. Accordingly, we are of the view that the AO has rightly invoked the power u/s 147/148 of the Act on the basis of the information received from the Sales Tax Department. Accordingly, we decide these issues in favour of the revenue against the assessee. ISSUE Nos. 3 & 4:- 6. Under these issues the assessee has challenged the confirmation of the addition to the extent of 5,85,520/- i.e. 12.5% of the bogus purchase. The Ld. Representative of the assessee has argued that the assessee earned meager gross profit of 0.30% and ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t should be made in the facts of this case. When the purchases are not absolutely proved it implies that the material may have been obtained from some other source and not from these parties." 7. On appraisal of the above said finding, we noticed that after the receipt of an information received DGIT(Inv.), Mumbai, the AO issued the notice u/s 133(6) of the Act. Notice received back unserved being the addressee were not residing there. The AO also deputed the ward Inspector who nowhere found the assessee at their address. The assessee also failed to produce the parties before the AO and nowhere filed any confirmation before the AO. The bank-statement of the hawala dealers were also not produced. However, the assessee produced the books of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 12.5% of addition and the assessee filed the appeal challenging the addition which has been restricted to the extent of 12.5%. The matter of controversy has been decided while deciding the appeal in ITA. No.7051/M/2017. Accordingly, the finding given in the said appeals is quite applicable to these appeal also as mutatis mutandis. Accordingly, we dismissed the appeal of revenue bearing ITA. No.6816/M/2017 and restrict the addition to the bogus purchase in the assessee's appeal bearing ITA. No. 7052/M/2017 to the extent of 6% of the bogus purchase. In brief, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed and appeal of the revenue is hereby dismissed. 9. In the result, appeals filed by the assessee are hereby ordered to be partly allowed and ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
