TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2022 (8) TMI 1289
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....tified in confirming the treatment of material purchases made by the assessee as bogus and making an addition of Rs. 17,92,880/- without considering the evidence, submissions and representation made by the assessee." 2. Perusal of record shows that impugned order was passed by ld NFAC on 22.03.2021 and the appeal before this Tribunal was filed on 29.06.2021, thus, there is delay of 29 days in filing of this appeal. The assessee has filed her affidavit for seeking condonation of delay in filing the appeal. In the affidavit, the assessee has sworn the fact that she is senior citizen, and her health was not good during the month of April and May 2021 and it was a period of second wave of severe Covid-19 pandemic. The ld authorised representat....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....3. In response to notice under Section 148, the assessee filed her reply and stated that the original return filed on 27/09/2011 may be treated as return in response to notice under Section 148 of the Act. The reasons for reopening, recorded was provided to the assessee on 08/08/2017. The Assessing Officer after serving statutory notices under Section 143(2) and 142(1) proceeded for assessment. During re-assessment, the Assessing Officer recorded that on verification of record and material, it was noted that the assessee has issued cheque against the purchases mostly at the end of the year i.e. in the month of March in the following manner: Sr. No. Name of the purchaser Amount (in Rs.) 1 Shroff & Co. 8,00,000/- 2 Kinnari Sea Foods ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....her hotel. The assessee has shown total purchases of Rs. 2.181 crore out of which the purchases from unregistered dealer are only of Rs. 17,92,880/-. The bills were received from the parties and payments were made through cheques. Allegation of fictitious party is incorrect. Material is actually received in the hotel without which this material, the hotel business cannot run. The assessee further stated that the case of supplier/Prajesh Parmar was reopened on similar (common) grounds and similar addition of same amount is added in his total income. The same amount cannot be taxed twice. The addition of supplier/Prajesh Parmar was also made by same Assessing Officer. Based on aforesaid submission, the assessee prayed to delete the entire add....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ransaction unless the payment is made on unreasonable basis. There is no such allegation of Assessing Officer. The ld. AR submitted copy of assessment order in case of supplier is also placed on record. On our specific quarry, the ld AR for the assessee submits that appeal in case of supplier is pending before ld CIT(A). 10. On the other hand, the ld. Sr DR for the revenue supported the order of the lower authorities. The ld. Sr DR for the revenue further submits that during the assessment the assessing officer asked the assessee that payments made by assessee against the purchases shown by the assessee from four party was made at the end of financial year as recorded in para-6 of the assessment order. The assessee on receipt of the reply ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ed in his return of income. In such undisclosed bank accounts that assessee made transaction of Rs. 1.80 Crore, out of which transaction of Rs. 32.00 lacks were with the Popular Hotel managed by assessee (Damyantiben). Out of which disallowance of Rs. 17,92,880/- are the subject matter of appeal in our hand. The assessing officer made addition of Rs. 1.80 Crore in the assessment of Prajeshsinh Iswarsinh Parmar in the assessment order dated 30.12.2016 under section 143(3) rws 147. We are conscious of the fact that the additions made in the assessment of related party (Prajeshsinh I Parmar) are subject matter of appeal before ld CIT(A). Thus, we are restraining ourselves on making any observation on such transaction conducted through the impu....