TMI Blog2021 (1) TMI 529X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... l has been adduced by the assessee before us that would warrant us to deviate from the findings of lower authorities. We confirm the estimation of 12.5% as made by Ld. AO. The grounds thus raised stands dismissed. The assessee, in one of the ground, has asserted that no opportunity of cross-examine the suppliers was provided to the assessee. However, we find that the initial onus was on assessee to produce the suppliers and therefore, this plea cannot be given much weight.- Decided against assessee. - I.T.A. No.2518/Mum/2019 - - - Dated:- 3-12-2020 - Hon ble Shri Saktijit Dey, JM And Hon ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, AM For the Assessee : None For the Revenue : Shri Chintamani Dingankar-Ld.Sr.DR ORDER MANOJ KUMA ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... verall gross profit in such industry. As evident the assessee is aggrieved by estimated addition on account of alleged suspicious purchases. The assessee has also challenged the jurisdiction of Ld. AO to reopen the proceedings for the year under consideration. However, the perusal of assessment order would reveal that the assessment has been framed u/s 143(3) only and there are no reassessment proceedings for the year under consideration. Therefore, finding no substance in legal ground, we dismiss the same. 2. None appeared for assessee. The assessee failed to appear even on last date of hearing also. Therefore, the matter was processed with on the basis of material on record and after hearing Ld. Sr. DR who pleaded for confirmation o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... firmation of accounts. The assessee also failed to file the complete details as noted by Ld.AO in Para 5.3 of the order. In the said background, a conclusion was drawn that the assessee failed to discharge the onus casted upon him to establish the genuineness of the purchases. Finally, Ld. AO estimated as addition of 12.5% against these purchases which resulted into an addition of ₹ 368.63 Lacs in the hands of the assessee. 4. Although the assessee assailed the additions by way of elaborate written submissions, however, the same could not convince Ld. First appellate authority. After noticing the ratio laid down by Hon ble Supreme Court in CIT V/s Durgaprasad More 82 ITR 540 as well as in Sumati Dayal V/s CIT 214 ITR 801, Ld. C ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
