9911796707
TMI Blog2020 (11) TMI 416X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he learned counsel for the assessee that the order of the ITAT needs to be reconsidered. The submissions are summarised as under: 1) The appellant is a private limited company having its present office at 4 Annapurna Sadan, Behind Moonlight Shopping Centre, Andheri Kurla Road, Andheri (East) Mumbai 400 069 and is engaged in the business of trading and manufacturing of electronie parts and is also regularly being assessed to tax by ITO ward 1()(3)(1) at Mumbai. 2) Aggrieved by the order of CIT(A)-14 dated 09/01/2017, the aforesaid appeal bearing No. ITA/1423/MUM/2017 was filed before your honour, which was dismissed vide aforesaid order dated 14/09/2017. ft was the observation of the Hon'ble Tribunal that the addition made @ 12.5% o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ble Bench to reconsider/re-call the said order, reconsider the same on factual aspects, and do the justice to the Applicant in the matter. 6) The applicant hereby requests this Hon'ble Bench to condone the delay, if any, which had occurred in making this miscellaneous application. 7) In view of what is stated above and in the aforesaid premises, the Applicant/Appellant prays:- That this Hon'ble Bench be pleased to re-consider/call back its order dated 14/09/2017 and re-store the appeal bearing No. ITA NO: 1423/MUM/2017 and do the justice to the appellant. 3. Upon careful consideration, I find that the issue was adjudicated by the Tribunal as under: 2. I heard the parties and perused the record. The assessee is a dealer ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... urchases by furnishing copies of purchase bills, payment details etc. The assessee has also proved that the said goods have been sold. He further submitted that the applicable VAT rate on most of the goods was only 5%. He submitted that the suppliers have been declared as hawala dealers, since they did not pay the VAT tax. He submitted that the same would not make the purchases non-genuine. Accordingly he submitted that the addition confirmed by Ld CIT(A) should be deleted. On the contrary, the Ld D.R submitted that the assessee should have made profit on the value of purchases and hence the Ld CIT(A) was justified in adopting the G.P rate for making addition.5. I have heard rival submissions and perused the record. Since the assessee has p ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e of alleged bogus purchases @ 12.50% and in my view, the same is reasonable in the facts and circumstances of the case discussed above. Accordingly I do not find any infirmity in the order passed by Ld CIT(A) and hence uphold the same.7. In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed." 4. I find that the Tribunal has duly appreciated the submissions and, thereafter, upheld the orders of the authorities below. I find that by way of this MA assessee seeks a review of the order of the Tribunal in the grab of rectification of mistake apparent from record. It is a settled law that review of order in the grab of rectification of mistake apparent from record is not permissible in law. Moreover, it is also noted that the MA has bee ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
