Appeal Dismissed Due to Filing Delay & Unverifiable Purchases

The Appellate Tribunal dismissed the appeal in ITA No.4450/Mum/2018 for A.Y.2009-10 due to a delay of 172 days in filing. The disallowance of unverifiable purchases amounting to Rs. 9,78,420/- by the ld. CIT(A) was upheld, as the assessee failed to challenge the order under section 263, which directed the disallowance. The Tribunal's jurisdiction was limited as the assessee did not appeal against the section 263 order, leading to the rejection of the appeal and dismissal of grounds raised by the assessee.

---

---

Issues:
Delay in filing appeal, Justification of disallowance on account of unverifiable purchases

Analysis:
The appeal in ITA No.4450/Mum/2018 for A.Y.2009-10 was filed with a delay of 172 days, which was condoned by the Appellate Tribunal based on the reasons provided by the assessee. The main issue in this appeal was whether the disallowance of unverifiable purchases amounting to Rs. 9,78,420/- was justified by the ld. CIT(A).

The assessee, engaged in retail business, had initially declared a total income of Nil for A.Y.2009-10, which was later revised by the ld. Administrative CIT under section 263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The revision was based on the disallowance of purchases claimed from M/s. United Marketing amounting to Rs. 9,78,420/-. The ld. AO was directed to disallow these purchases, and the same was upheld by the ld. CIT(A).

During the proceedings, the assessee argued that the purchases from M/s. United Marketing were genuine, supported by documentary evidence and responses from the supplier. However, the disallowance was made by the ld. AO in compliance with the directions of the ld. CIT under section 263. The Appellate Tribunal noted that the assessee should have appealed against the order passed under section 263 but failed to do so, thereby limiting the Tribunal's jurisdiction to address the disallowance issue.

Ultimately, the Appellate Tribunal dismissed the appeal, stating that since the assessee did not challenge the order under section 263, they could not contest the disallowance made by the ld. AO. Therefore, the grounds raised by the assessee were dismissed, and the appeal was rejected.

---