TMI Blog2021 (1) TMI 875X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... een considered for the similar line of industry in which assessee is engaged in. Hence, we hold that the ld. CIT(A) had rightly estimated the profit percentage at 12.5% on value of alleged disputed purchases - Decided against assessee. - ITA No.2519/Mum/2019 - - - Dated:- 18-12-2020 - Shri C.N. Prasad, JM And Shri M. Balaganesh, AM For the Assessee : None For the Revenue : Shri Vijay Kumar Menon ORDER PER M. BALAGANESH (A.M): This appeal in ITA No.2519/Mum/2019 for A.Y.2013-14 arises out of the order by the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-18, Mumbai in appeal No.CIT(A)-18/IT-10091/DCIT-11(3)(1)/16-17 dated 20/04/2016 (ld. CIT(A) in short) against the order of assessment passed u/s.143(3) of the Income ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... and found to be bogus:- Name of the suppliers Amount (Rs.) M/s. Citius Trading Pvt. Ltd., 1,94,47,000 M/s. Peach Exim Pvt. Ltd., 2,07,86,000 M/s. Hoatzin Trading Pvt. Ltd., 1,48,49,000 M/s. Somu Textrade Pvt. Ltd., 5,05,14,000 Total 10,55,96,000 3.1. The ld. AO observed in his assessment order that information was received from DCIT, Central Circle-4(3), Central Range-4, Mumbai vide letter dated 23/02/2016 and assessee had taken accommodation entries aggregating to ₹ 1 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s. The ld. AO issued notice u/s.133(6) of the Act to the aforesaid suppliers which was returned unserved by the postal authorities. Accordingly, the assessee was asked to produce the said parties along with compliance letter to notice u/s.133(6) of the Act, for which the assessee expressed its inability to do so. The ld. AO also observed that the address of the aforesaid suppliers given by the assessee were also cross verified from the website of Sales Tax Department of Government of Maharashtra and found to be same. He observed that these parties appeared in the list of tainted hawala dealers in the said website of Government of Maharashtra. The ld. AO however, agreed to the fact that assessee had made sales out of the alleged purchases ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... pheld the action of the ld. AO. 4. Aggrieved, the assessee is in appeal before us. 5. We find that the assessee has just raised a ground stating that the materials purchased by it do not come under the ambit of MVAT / Sales Tax. We find that no evidences in any manner whatsoever has been furnished by the assessee to support this claim and the assessee had absolutely not bothered to even record its presence either in person or through its authorized representative to substantiate its claim made in the grounds of appeal. We find that in the instant case, the consumption / sales made by the assessee out of the disputed purchases has not been doubted by the revenue. Hence, it would be just and proper to bring to tax only the profit elemen ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
