TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2023 (5) TMI 278
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Respondent : Ms. Neelam C. Jadhav, Advocate. JUDGMENT PER DHIRAJ SINGH THAKUR, J.: Both these appeals have been preferred under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ("the Act") challenging the order dated 20th January, 2017 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Bench 'F', Mumbai ("ITAT"), for the assessment years 2009-10 and 2010-11. 2. The facts and issues arising in both these ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ived from the Sales Tax Department in respect of certain bogus parties. The TIN of the said parties matched with those from whom the purchases were alleged to have been made by the Appellant. Notices under Section 133(6) of the Act were issued by the A.O. to which there was no compliance. The assessee is also stated to have failed to produce the said parties from the aforesaid ten entities. Conse....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....essee as also the revenue, which was finally decided by virtue of the order impugned dated 20th January, 2017, which is impugned in the present appeal. The Tribunal upheld the view of the CIT(A) to treat the purchases from ten parties as bogus and also upheld the view expressed by the CIT(A) to sustain the addition to the extent of 12.5% of the amount of the disputed purchases relying upon the dec....