TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2021 (3) TMI 657
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....f by way of this common order for the sake of convenience & brevity. 2. At the time of hearing, none appeared for assessee. The perusal of order sheet entries would show that the assessee has failed to attend hearing on various occasions. At the same time, we find that the material on record is quite sufficient for disposal of these appeals. Therefore, the matter was proceeded with after hearing learned DR who supported the orders of lower authorities. First, we take up appeal for AY 2009-10 which is against the order of Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-10, Mumbai [CIT(A)] dated 22/10/2019 on following grounds of appeal:- 1. The CIT(A) wrongly confirmed the re-opening the assessment which was only on the basis of third party sati....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ax Department that the assessee procured accommodation purchase bills of Rs. 727.21 Lacs from 5 tainted parties as detailed in the assessment order. Accordingly, notice u/s. 148 was issued on 03/03/2015 as per due process of law which was followed by statutory notices u/s. 142(1) & 143(2) wherein the assessee was required to establish the genuineness of these purchases. 3.2 The assessee defended the suspicious purchases by adducing purchase and sales invoices. It was submitted that for every purchase of an item, there was a corresponding sale. Further, purchase and sales were of trading in nature. However, finding that primary onus to establish the genuineness of the purchase remained un-discharged since the assessee failed to produce any ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ssment. On merits also, Ld. CIT(A) also upheld the action of Ld. AO in making estimated additions. Aggrieved, the assessee is in further appeal before us. 4. Upon due consideration of material facts as well as the order of lower authorities, it is quite evident that the assessee had made certain purchases from concerns run by a tainted group. It was admitted by key persons of those concerns that they did not carry out any genuine business activities. During survey proceedings also, the assessee could not satisfactorily explain the purchases made during the year. The assessee could not produce any of the suppliers to prove the genuineness of the purchases. Hence the assessee was unable to discharge the primary onus of proving impugned purch....