TMI Blog2022 (11) TMI 1059X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the assessee challenging the impugned order dated 15/03/2018, passed under section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ( the Act ) by the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) 37, Mumbai [ learned CIT(A)‟], for the assessment year 2007 08. 2. The present appeal has been listed for hearing before us pursuant to the order dated 10/10/2022, passed by the Co ordinate Bench of the Tribunal in Suresh Maneklal Sheth vs ITO, M.A. no. 107/Mum./2022 (in ITA no. 3580/ Mum./2018, for the assessment year 2007 08), whereby, the earlier order dated 29/11/2021, passed under section 254(1) of the Act was recalled and appeal was directed to be re fixed for hearing. 3. In this appeal, the assessee has raised the following grounds: The f ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e on account of bogus purchases. 6. The brief facts of the case as emanating from the record are: The assessee is a proprietor of Namrata Paper Agencies and is engaged in the business of trading in paper. For the year under consideration, assessee filed its return of income on 21/04/2014, declaring total income of Rs. 6,63,520. Reassessment proceedings under section 147 of the Act were initiated in the case of the assessee based on information received from Sales Tax Department through DGIT (Investigation), Mumbai that the assessee is the beneficiary of bogus purchase bills and has obtained accommodation entries from 2 parties to the tune of Rs. 53,56,525. During the course of assessment proceedings, notice under section 133 (6) of the A ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... al in assessee s own case in Suresh Maneklal Sheth vs ITO, in ITA No. 3581 and 3582/Mum/2018, for the assessment years 2008 09 and 2009 10, vide order dated 30/08/2019, restricted the addition in respect of non-genuine purchases to 6% under similar facts and circumstances, by observing as under: 9. Having held so, now we propose to deal with the merits of the additions made by the Assessing Officer and partly sustained by learned Commissioner (Appeals). As could be seen from the facts on record, in course of assessment proceedings the assessee had failed to prove the genuineness of purchases from the declared source by furnishing any cogent evidence to show actual delivery of goods. Further, notices issued under section 133(6) of the A ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
