9911796707
TMI Blog2021 (11) TMI 1100X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s consolidated order. 2. None appeared on behalf of the assessee. Therefore, after hearing the ld.DR and considering the material available on record, we proceed to dispose of them ex parte qua the assesseerespondent. 3. It has been brought to our notice a letter of the assessee dated 10.11.2021 contending therein that appeals of the Revenue are not maintainable because the same are filed in violation of CBDT Circular No.17 of 2019 dated 8.8.2019 by which the CBDT prohibited Revenue not to file appeals before the Tribunal where tax effect is below Rs.50.00 lakhs. In the instant appeals, since tax effect is below Rs.50.00 lakhs, all three appeals of the Revenue are liable to be dismissed at the threshold. 4. After hearing the ld.DR, we fi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ppeals is, that the ld.CIT(A) has erred in restricting the following additions made by the AO on account of bogus purchases from hawala billers. ITA No. & AY Addition by AO Addition restricted ____________ ____________ by CIT(A) ITA No.1798/A/19 A.Y.2009-10 14,91,767/- 1,49,176/- ITA No.1799/A/19 A.Y.2011-12 6,45,676/- 1,79,563/- ITA No.1800/A/19 A.Y.2010-11 15,38,784/- 76,939/- 6. For adjudicating the appeal, we take brief facts from ITA No.1798/Ahd/2019; being common in all three appeals. Assessee is an individual running a proprietorship concern. He is a chemical dealer. The assessee filed return of income declaring total income of Rs.2,86,220/- on 29.9.2009. The return was processed but selected for scrutiny assess ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the reply of the assessee and relying on various judgments, and also decision of ITAT, Mumbai Bench in the case of Shri Tagaram G. Prajapati Vs. ITO in ITA No.1613, 1614 and 1615/Mum/2008 restricted the impugned addition by estimating 10% of alleged bogus purchase i.e. 10% of Rs.14,91,767/-. Aggrieved by the decision of the CIT(A), Revenue is in appeal before the Tribunal. 7. None appeared on behalf of the assessee. The Departmental Representative supported order of the Assessing Officer. 8. After hearing, the ld.DR, we have gone through the record carefully and also orders of the Revenue authorities. We find that the impugned addition on account of alleged bogus purchased was made by the ld.AO on account of information received from Mah ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
