ITA No.647/Mum/2017. Case: Ms. Ashok Industrial Corporation Vs ITO 19(2)(1). ITAT (Income Tax Appellate Tribunal)
| Case Number | ITA No.647/Mum/2017 |
| Counsel | For Appellant: Shri Sashank Dundu and Shri Rahul R.Sarda, Advs. and For Respondents: Shri A.K.Kardam, Advs. |
| Judges | Shri R.C.Sharma, AM |
| Issue | Income tax Act - Section 143 |
| Judgement Date | May 12, 2017 |
| Court | ITAT (Income Tax Appellate Tribunal) |
Order:
Shri R.C.Sharma, AM
-
This is an appeal filed by the assessee against the order of CIT(A)-30, Mumbai dated 25/11/2016 for the A.Y.2009-10 in the matter of order passed u/s.143(3) r.w.s.147 of the IT Act.
-
The following grounds have been taken by the assessee:-
-
The CIT (A) failed to appreciate that all purchases of the Appellant were genuine and duly supported by evidence. Therefore, the addition sustained at the rate of6.5% of purchases is bad in law.
-
The CIT (A) failed to appreciate that the AO did not carry out any independent enquiry himself and did not point out any defect in the evidence furnished by the Appellant. Therefore, the addition is liable to be deleted.
-
The CIT (A) failed to appreciate that the AO had not provided the Appellant any material on which he placed reliance in making the impugned addition thereby violating the principles of natural justice. The CIT (A) ought to have provided such material to the Appellant before adjudicating on the impugned addition. Therefore, the addition is not justified.
-
It was argued by learned AR Mr. Shashank Dundu that merely on the information received from DGIT(Inv.), regarding the Sales Tax Department finding Hawala dealers involved in bogus transactions, AO made an addition of Rs.23,64,585.6/- @12.5% of the total alleged Bogus Purchases amounting to Rs.1,89,16,685/-, to the total income of the Assessee. He invited our attention to the copies of the purchase bills filed before the AO. As per learned AR, the stock Register also shows recording of all the purchases in the regular books of accounts. Copies of sales bills have also not been doubted by the AO and CIT(A).
-
My attention was also invited by learned AR to the bank statement evidencing the payments through Account Payee Cheques. Attention was also invited to the ledger copies of purchase parties in assessee''s books. Challenging the reopening, it was contended by learned AR that AO had not provided any reason or further information w.r.t. making the addition. The information from the Sales Tax Department is the sole basis for the addition. AO had not called the parties for enquiry, hence the burden of proof lies on the AO.
-
Learned AR further contended that CIT(A) erred in making the following statements as provided in the CIT(A)'s Order:
- Reliance was placed on the decision of CIT v. Simit P. Sheth(Supra) by the CIT(A)(Pg.17, Para 6.11, CIT(A)), since the addition in the said case is based on 2 factors i.e...
To continue reading
Request your trial